Some New Testament Problems, A. Wright. 1898

* MAY 28 1904 *)
Division BSZ3^ I
Section
.WS4
THE CHURCHMAN'S LIBRARY
Edited by J. H. Burn, B.D.
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

THE CHURCHMAN'S LIBRARY
EDITED BY
JOHN HENRY BURN, B.D.

Examining Cliap'ain to the Lord Bishop of Aberdeen.
THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH CHRISTIANITY. By W. E.

Collins, M.A., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, King's College,
London. Crown 8vo, 35. 6rf. \Ready.
THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS. By G. W. Gent, M.A.,
Principal of St. David's College, Lampeter.
THE CHURCHMAN'S PRIMER. By G. Harford-Battersbv, M.A.
OUR CONTROVERSY WITH ROME. By J. M. Danson, D.D.
THE LITERARY AND HISTORICAL INTEREST OF THE
PRAYER BOOK. By John Dovvden, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Edinburgh.
A POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By Angus M. Mackay, B.A.
A POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By J. H. Shepherd, M.A.
AN INTRODUCTION TO TEXTUAL CRITICISM. By A. M.
Knight, M.A , Fellow and Dean of Gonville and Caius College,
Cambridge.
SOME OLD TESTAMENT PROBLEMS. By John P. Peters,
D.D., D So.
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS. By Arthur Wright,
M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Queens' College, Cambridge. Crown
8vo, 6j.
BIBLE REVISION. By J. J. S. Perowne, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Worcester.
DEVOTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES. By
John Gott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Truro.
ENGLISH HYMNS AND HYMN TUNES. By H. C. Shuttle-
worth, M.A., Professor of Pastoral and Liturgical Theology, King's
College, London.
THE WITNESS OF ARCHAEOLOGY. By C. J. Ball, M.A.,
Chaplain of Lincoln's Inn.
ENGLISH ECCLESIOLOGY. By J. N, Comper, F.S.A.
CONFIRMATION. By H. T. Kingdon, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Fredericton.
INSPIRATION. By Canon Benham, B.D.
MIRACLES. By Thomas B. Strong, M. A., Student of Christ Church,
Oxford.
PROVIDENCE AND PRAYER. By V. H. Stanton, D.D., Ely Pro-
fessor of Divinity, Cambridge.
EVOLUTION. By Frank B. Jevons, D.Litt., Principal of Hatfield
Hall, Durham.
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN AND A FUTURE LIFE. By Canon
Winterbotham, M.A., B.Sc.
FOREIGN MISSIONS. By Allan B. Webb, D.D., Lord Bishop of
Grahamstown.
PREACHING. By Frederic Relton, A.K.C.
SOME
NEW TESTAMENT
PROBLEMS
BY
V
REV. ARTHUR WRIGHT, M.A.
FELLOW AND TUTOR OF QUEENS* COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
METHUEN & CO.

36, ESSEX STREET, STRAND
LONDON
CONTENTS
I. First, Second and Third Editions of S. Mark's

Gospel. . . . . . i
II. S. Mark's Order . . . . . ii
III. S. Matthew's "Logia" . . . . i6
IV. S. Luke's "Travel Narrative" . . .

23
V. Identical Passages 30
.
...
. . .
VI. Conflations . . 40
VII. On the Proper Names in S. Mark's Gospel 56
VIII. On the Proper Names in S. Luke's Writings .
74
IX. On Oral Teaching . . . 91
X. On
a Sword . . ...
the Precept to Sell your Cloak and Buy
104
XI. S. Mark's Testimony to the Resurrection . 115
XII. The Camel and the Needle's Eye . . .125

^Xlll. The Origin of the Lord's Supper . . .
134
XIV. On the Date of the Crucifixion . .147 .
XV. Mr. Halcombe's Strictures on Modern Criticism 195

XVI. Theories of Messrs. Badham and Jolley 243.
XVII. Papias on S. Matthew . . 265. .
^^-XVIII. The Gift of Tongues . . 277. .
The Beautiful Gate of the Temple

XIX.
^^^X. Apollos . . . ... 303. .
309
^ ^"XXI. That Prophecy is Conditional .
XXII. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews

. . 323
331
PREFACE
''
I ^HE chief use of the New Testament is, and
-' always should be, devotional. We approach
it best in the sanctuary, when our minds have been
prepared by confession, prayer, and adoration to
learn of Him who has said, "Whosoever shall not
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, will not
enter therein."
But when we have come to love the book as the
revelation of jESUS Christ, we find that it appeals
to our intellect as well as to our affections. The
proper preparation for the pulpit is conscientious work
in the study, and even laymen will find that their
apprehension of Scripture truth is assisted by some

acquaintance with the history of the first century
and its immediate precursors, with the geography
of the Holy Land, and with Semitic modes of thought
and expression. Grammar is the first essential in
exegesis. Textual criticism is indispensable. His-

torical criticism, with which the present volume
chiefly deals, is still more fundamental. Without
viii NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
it the commentator is at fault and the apologist loses
his most effective weapons. Destructive it may be

like every other weapon — if unfairly used ; but as it is
a true science, it must in the long run prove the

supporter of truth.
It is impossible that " the higher criticism," as it is
called, should so rapidly gain ground in the domain

of the Old Testament, and yet the New Testament
remain in the grasp of mediaeval harmonists. They
served their time and served it well, but their methods
will not suffice for ever. We must keep pace with
the age, if we would hand down the truth to future
generations.
It is in the hope of contributing something to that

end that the present work is written. No attempt
has been made to cover the whole ground. The
problems which are discussed arise, with one ex-
ception, out of the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles. Not that S. Paul's writings or
S. John's yield no problems, but in these days it is
impossible for one man to deal adequately with the
whole range of New Testament study. I, at any

rate, have found it better to concentrate my attention
on one or two small departments.

I have recently published a Synopsis of the
Gospels, and I am now engaged on a critical edition
of S. Luke's Gospel for use in the lecture-room.

PREFACE ix
The work of preparing these volumes has suggested

many of the problems which are here propounded,
and, at the same time, has made it possible to collect
the statistics which have facilitated their solution.

I have added some expository papers for the
purpose of showing how criticism may assist in
interpretation and apologetics. I have also at times

defended my own position against opponents of
various kinds, not from any love of controversy, but
in the hope of contributing towards the settlement
of many questions which in the infancy of the new
science are necessarily debated.
What I have written in defence of the oral
hypothesis may be read in connexion with the

Introduction to my Synopsis, in which I have
summarised the arguments, some of which are
produced at length here — some, but not all ; the
argument from the assimilation of doublets, which
I think the most convincing of all, has been deemed
to be sufficiently expressed there. Yet, as I have
some misgivings on that point, perhaps I may be
pardoned for lingering on it a moment now.
The term "doublets" is used in the widest sense to
include all similar passages. My contention is that
in oral teaching, owing to a well-known trick of the
memory, similar passages are sure to become more

similar ; whereas, if documents were slavishly copied
X NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the original differences would in all probability be
maintained.
Now it seems to me that in the Gospels according
to S. Matthew and S. Luke the process of uncon-

scious assimilation is very frequently to be observed.
We may take as an illustration the Feeding of the
Five Thousand and the Feeding of the Four
Thousand. Many critics have held these to be mere
doublets, i.e.^ two records of one and the same event.
For is it conceivable (they ask) that the Twelve, after
witnessing the former miracle, should have been
totally unprepared for the latter? Should have felt
the same difficulties, asked the same questions, and

reported the occurrence on the same lines ?
There would be force in these objections if we held

that the conversations in the Gospels are verbatim
reports. But if they are only summaries of what
was really said, and if gaps in the narrator's recollec-
tions were supplied from conjecture or by conflation,
then we must remember the biblical method, which

is so strongly marked in Amos and other Old Testa-
ment writers, of telling similar things in similar
language. And when this had once been done, the
effect of oral repetition (if there was such a thing)
would be to make the two narratives still more alike.
S. Mark's accounts of these two parallel events,

although originally sufficiently resembling each other.
PREFACE xi
have probably been still further assimilated to
some extent ; S. Matthew's unquestionably to a very

much greater extent, for in the latter part of the
sections he makes the words practically identical.
Another case in which he has done the same thing is
given on page 48, but there are scores of passages in

which this process, which we would attribute to
unconscious cerebration, may be perceived. S. Luke

exhibits it to a less degree, but a striking example of
it in his Gospel is pointed out on page in. No dull
copyist with documents before him would, I main-

tain, be at all likely to produce these effects ; no oral
teaching could be carried on for forty years without

them.
These arguments, I believe, will have to be
reckoned with. It is of little help for the supporters
of the documentary hypothesis to admit that oral
teaching is a vera causa, as they now frequently do,
and then to pronounce in favour of documents without
removing one of the objections which have been
shown to lie against them. That is not the way
to advance the cause of truth, which is what we
all alike desire.
The papers on the Acts of the Apostles deal with

hermeneutics. I do not as yet feel prepared to
analyse that book into its sources. The materials

for doing so are insufficient. We have four Gospels,
xii NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
which can be compared with each other, but we have
only one Acts of the Apostles. The comparative
method cannot be directly applied to the book.
Certain broad outlines are plain, but I reserve dis-
cussion of them for a future occasion.
The paper on the Epistle to the Hebrews is tenta-
tive and suggestive rather than exhaustive. Perhaps

it may stir up others to pursue a fascinating study.
A correct theory of the Scriptures is an immense

aid to their interpretation, but it does not supply the
inward illumination, which makes them the salvation
of our souls. And therefore I invite all students of
Holy Writ to join with me in using the ancient

prayer :
Veni, Creator Spiritus,

Mentes tuorum visita,
Imple superna gratia

Quae Tu creasti pectora.
NEW TESTAMENT
PROBLEMS
I.
FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS

OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL
THE priority of S.
with the great majority of
Mark's Gospel
critics.
isan axiom
Those who
accept the documentary hypothesis respecting the
origin of the Gospels are forced, sooner or later, to
admit that not our S. Mark, but an earlier Ur-
Marcus lies at the basis of the synoptic records. We
who hold to the oral hypothesis have a much freer
hand. We are not bound to postulate the existence
of one, or indeed several, primitive and priceless re-
cords, which had once a wide circulation, but never-
theless were permitted by the supposed carelessness of
the early Christians to perish. We know of one S.
Mark, and only one. But we believe that the written
S. Mark was preceded by an oral S. Mark, and that
the oral S. Mark took many years in forming. We
are not tied to adocument beginning with John the
Baptist and ending with iipoôvvro yap, or any other
B
2 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
formula. We believe that a single lesson, perhaps
connected with the Passion, was the first small
origin of the book, and that other lessons, one at
a time, collected round that centre, the whole record
expanding by degrees, sometimes in one chapter
sometimes in another, till it reached its present
dimensions.
What I want to insist upon in the present paper is
that we may still trace three stages in the formation

of S. Mark, and that they may be said to constitute a
first edition, a second, and a third.
In S. Luke's Gospel we shall find, embedded
amongst other matter, the first edition ; in S. Mat-
thew's the second ; while S. Mark himself may be
said to have written the third.
If these three editions had all proceeded direct
from Mark's pen, the problem would be simple.
S.
The first edition would have been as far as it went —
—the nearest to the primitive oral teaching ; the
second and third, though useful for corroboration,
would have been chiefly valued for their new matter.
At present the case is different. S. Luke's edition,
though the had been modified before it reached
first,
him, by passing through the minds and memories of

perhaps a dozen teachers, all of whom were men of
mature age, who had lost the freshness of verbal
memory. Although they learned the lessons by
heart, and so did not materially or consciously
change them, they unconsciously especially at the —
first —
substituted synonyms, omitted details, occa-
sionally improved the diction. And so, before the
Gospel reached S. Luke, its wording had been a
EDITIONS OF S. MARK'S GOSPEL 3
good deal modified, as we may see by comparing his

edition of it with S. Mark. Not only so, but nearly
forty years passed between his first undertaking to
teach and his final resolution to write. And during
these forty years a certain amount of change in his
own teaching also must be allowed for.
The second edition, embedded in S. Matthew,

exhibits the same process. Verbally it is more in
agreement with S. Mark, but the desire for brevity
has often led to great curtailment. And so the
third edition — S. Mark's own — as a rule best repre-
sents the original oral teaching. Except when the
other Evangelists are agreed against it in the choice
or addition of a word, we rightly prefer S. Mark's
testimony.
But in one important particular S. Luke's evidence
is of the greatest value. It helps us, I maintain, to
fix the relative date at which S. Mark's sections were
produced. If S. Luke contains a section of Marcan
matter, we may feel sure that that section belonged
to the first edition of S. Mark ; if he omits it, there is
a strong presumption that it did not.

I therefore append a list of those sections of S.
Mark which are absent from S. Luke. In the margin
I give such scraps of them as S. Luke has neverthe-
less preserved. For in some cases, which it is most
important to distinguish, the section is omitted from
S. Luke, but a small fragment, or scrap, of it is
given. This curious phenomenon will be explained
afterwards. At first it seems fatal to our theory, but
in the end it will be seen to yield the strongest
confirmation.
NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Scraps of
Sections belonging to the later, them found in
or second, edition of S. Mark. S. Mark. S. Luke.
1. The Baptist's clothing and dress i. 6
2. The Baptist's preaching (?) . i. 7-8 iii. 16
3. The calling of SS. Simon, Andrew
James and John . i. 16-20 V. lO-H
4.*" He is mad." iii. 19^-21
S. "He hath Beelzebub." ill. 22-27 xi. 14-15,
17-18, 21-22
6. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit iii. 28-30 xii. 10''
7- "Who is my mother?" (?) . iii- 31-35 viii. 19-21

8. *The seed growing secretly iv. 26-29
9- The grain of mustard seed , iv. 30-32 xiii. 18-19
10. Nothing without a parable iv. 33-34
II. A visit to Nazareth . vi. 1-6^ iv. 16, 22, 24
12. The death of John the Baptist vi. 17-29 iii. 19-20 (?)
The walking on the sea vi. 45-52

14. The landing at Gennesaret . vi. 53-56
Eating with unwashed hands vii. 1-23 xl 38 (?)
16. The Syrophenician woman's

daughter vii. 24-30
The deaf man who had an impedi
ment in his speech vii. 31-37
18. The feeding of the four thousand viii. I- 10
19. A sign from heaven demanded viii. 11-13 xi. 16, 29
20. The leaven of the Pharisees . viii. 14-21 xii. I
21. *The blind man of Bethsaida . viii. 22-26

22. S. Peter rebukes our Lord . viii. 32-33
23- Descent from the Mount of Trans
figuration . . . ix. 9-13 ix. 36b
The cup of cold water in the name
of a disciple IX. 41
25. Of causing scandals . ix. 42-49 xvu. 2
26, Salt is good ix. 50 xiv. 34
27, On the question of divorce . X. I-12 xvi. 18
28. The ambitious request X. 35-45 xxii. 25-26

29. The fruitless fig tree . 12-14,20-25
30' The question put by the scribe xii. 28-34 X. 25-27
31
'*
Lest Heyou sleeping"
find xiii. 34-37
32 The anointing at Bethany xiv. 3-9 vii. 36-38,
40(?)
33. "I will smite the shepherd" xiv. 27-28
S. Mark.
" "
34. I will destroy this temple . xiv. 55-61
35. Mockery by the soldiers . . xv. 16-20*
36. Elahi, Elahi, l^ma s^bhaqtani . xv. 34-36
Cases about which there is some doubt are marked thus (?)
*
Sections which are found in the third edition only are marked thus
To the above should probably be added a few words, lines, or para-
graphs embedded in other sections, e.g. S. Mark xiv. 38'' —42.
I will now produce some reasons for believing
that the sections here catalogued are of later date
than the rest of S. Mark's Gospel, so that we may
reasonably speak of them as belonging to the second
edition.
And first this supposition corresponds with certain
facts which are narrated in the Acts of the Apostles
and in the earliest Fathers of the Church.
We are told by Papias* that S. Mark's Gospel is
S. Peter's work, which S. Mark translated (from
Aramaic into Greek). We accept this statement as
generally true and therefore believe that both S.
Peter's and S. Mark's presence were necessary for the
production of a Gospel section in Greek. Now
S. Peter — except during certain missionary journeys
— and laboured in Jerusalem from the great
lived
day of Pentecost until he took up his residence in
Joppa (Acts ix. 43). During this period we believe
the first edition of S. Mark's oral Gospel to have
been composed. Then came a considerable gap,
during which S. Mark also left the Holy City and
became S. Paul's companion to teach the Gospel to
the Gentiles (Acts xii. 25, xiii. 5). But S. Mark
* EusEBius, Hist, Eccl.i iii., xxxix. 15.
gave up work and returned to Jerusalem (Acts
this
xiii. Other catechists had to be found for S.
13).
Paul's Gentile Churches, and undoubtedly they were
brought from Jerusalem, like the prophets and
evangelists, for so only can we account for the rapid
Judaising of S. Paul's converts. My point is that
the oral Gospel, which was carried to the West and
became the basis of all subsequent teaching there,
must have been S. Mark's Gospel at this particular
stage of its growth, which I have called the first
edition.
When S. Mark returned to Jerusalem (Acts xiii.
13) he either found S. Peter there or was soon joined

by him (Acts xv. 7). How long the pair remained in
Jerusalem we do not know ; but probably long
enough for the completion of the second edition.
As we need not feel troubled,
for the third edition
because it new sections and these
only added four
may be of very much later growth. At any rate S.
Peter in his first epistle, which is generally admitted
to belong to the closing period of his life, calls S.
Mark "his son" (i Pet. v. 13), and sends a saluta-
tion from him, showing that the early associates
were once more united and may even then have
composed these four sections.
Secondly, by our hypothesis we sweep away at a
single stroke the stupendous difficulty which beset the
question of S. Luke's omissions. Few people face
that difficulty as they ought ; to me it was a stum-
bling block for many years, but it has been removed.
S. Luke is seen to have omitted little or even
nothing. We thus make him a reasonable man and
a conscientious worker. The gain in this respect can

hardly be exaggerated.
Thirdly, internal evidence supports our contention.
It will be seen that many of the new sections fall
together so as to form a group. I have bracketed

five such groups, one a particularly long one. Now
we see from the parallel case of the "Travel
Narrative " in S. Luke (paper iv.) that new materials
are apt to be aggregated together. once a When
gap made, it has a tendency to increase in size.
is
—
The huge addition, Mark vi. 45 viii. 26, is only a
striking illustration of this tendency.
Fourthly, we must notice the eighteen scraps.
The first thing to observe is that they are shortthey ;
are scraps and not sections. Next, they are put by

S. Luke into a different context from that which they
occupy in S. Mark. Lastly, they are always taken
from what I have called S. Mark's second edition,
and therefore frequently agree with S. Matthew
against S. Mark.
From these facts we conclude that they reached
S. Luke in the same way in which we shall see (paper
iii.) that S. Matthew's Logia reached him. That is to
say, theywere sent to him by correspondents, who
quoted them because of their intrinsic value, but did
not at the same time give the necessary information
about the occasions on which they were spoken. S.
Luke, therefore, misplaced them through imperfect
knowledge.
If we are right in supposing that all S. Paul's
churches, and many others, possessed an oral Gospel,
which was jealously guarded by the authorities,-^ none
* See Critical Review (T. and T. Clark), vol. i. p. 370 f.
but experts would know which portions of it were
work, which S. Matthew's, and which were
S. Peter's
supplied from other sources. S. Luke, therefore,
would often receive from his various correspondents
some sayings which he possessed already. And
although the great majority of new sayings came
from S. Matthew's logia, a few would be sure to
belong to the earlier cycle. If, then, no Marcan
scraps had been utilised by S. Luke, we should have
had to explain why it was so. At present the simple
fact that he misplaces them is an indication that our
explanation is correct.
S. Mark's Gospel — if reckoned without the last
twelve verses which textual critics reject — contains
666 verses. The second edition adds 192 verses, and
the third edition 18. The first edition, therefore,
contained 456 verses probably, however, a good
;
many words, lines, and paragraphs which now figure

in these 456 verses were really absent from the first
edition, being later expansions.

Now, if we may look Matthew's Gospel for
to S.
the second edition of S. Mark, we
notice, as has been
said already, that S. Matthew presents it in an
abbreviated form, much curtailed by riddling out
words which were not essential. The same process,
perhaps, has sometimes been carried a little farther,
and has swept away sections as well as lines. At
any rate the following sections, though present in
S. Luke and reappearing in S. Mark, are absent from
S. Matthew :—
(i) The healing of the demoniac in the synagogue
atCapernaum (Mark 23-28 = Luke iv. ZZ-n)\
i.
(2) The stranger who exorcised in Jesus' name

(Mark 38-40 = Luke ix. 49-50)
ix.
(3) The widow's mites (Mark xii. 41-44 = Luke

xxi. 1-4).
The third edition contains four new sections which

according to our hypothesis are the latest additions
to S. Mark :—
(i) The suspicion that our Lord was mad (Mark
iii. 19^-21);
(2) The parable of the seed growing secretly
(Mark iv. 26-29)
(3) The healing of the deaf man who had an
impediment in his speech (Mark vii.31-37) ;
(4) The healing of the blind man of Bethsaida

(Mark viii. 22-26).
One more topic deserves consideration. S. Mark's

wealth of words has long been noticed. The more
closely we test it, the more convinced we are that it
is characteristic of his style, derived in part perhaps
from S. Peter's oriental redundancy. The longest

phrases with him, the most graphic and picturesque,
give the oldest form of the narrative. Even when
S. Matthew and S. Luke agree in omitting a word or
a line, and S. Mark gives it, S. Mark is generally
original.
may be some exceptions to this.
Nevertheless there
S. Mark, during forty years of oral teaching, may
have gathered new information from divers quarters
and used it to expand his already long expressions.
When words which are not merely picturesque, but
convey additional information, are found in S. Mark,
lo NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
but not in the parallel passages in the other Gospels,
we may allow that they belong to the third edition.
For example, in a few cases S. Mark agrees with
S. John, while the others are silent ("200 denarii,"
Mark vi. 37 = John vi. 7; "Pistic nard" Mark xiv.
3 = John xii. 3). If S. John's oral teaching at Ephesus
preceded the writing of the fourth Gospel by many
years, as we believe it to have done, there is no
difficulty in supposing that S. Mark during visits to
Ephesus derived something from it. On the oral
hypothesis we are perfectly free to think so if the
facts require.
Let no one suppose that the minute examina-
tion to which we have subjected the synoptic
Gospels in this and in the following chapters is
unprofitable. Anything which throws light upon
their genesis is valuable to the apologist. We
accept the Gospels because they speak direct to
our hearts as no other books do. We know
them be living, to be the work of the
to Holy
Spirit,and to reveal Him who is the Life but ;
they have a human side as well as a divine they ;
appeal to our intellect as well as to our heart,

and anything which will make them more real to us,
or will uphold them in the presence of objectors,
demands our earnest consideration.
In the papers which follow we shall find many
places where the hypothesis of S. Mark's second
edition will explain serious difficulties. It has all
the advantages of an Ur-Marcus, without any of

the improbability.
II.
S. MARK'S ORDER
last paper we saw reason to believe that
INS.theMark's Gospel admits of analysis. To a
certain extent, we can distinguish between its
earliest sections, its later additions, and its final
touches.
Papias complains that it is not written " in order."
If we examine his indictment in the light

carefully
which his own words immediately throw upon it,
we shall see it to be a very serious one. The
chronology of S. Mark's Gospel (he says) is in a
more or less chaotic state, because S. Peter did not
attempt to write history, but to supply a few lessons
for the immediate need of the Church.
Now the Church stood in need of teaching, and
we believe this teaching, in accordance with the
custom of the day in the East, to have consisted in
by heart. In that way the
learning lessons would
become a permanent possession in ; that way we
can account for the strange variations and stranger
similarity of identical sections in the synoptic
Gospels. Those Gospels were the work of ex-
perienced teachers or " catechists," who were highly
proficientin their lessons, yet did not copy a
document, but derived their information from the
more fluctuating processes of tradition.
II
But while we place the genesis of our Gospels in
the schoolroom rather than in the congregation,
we think it highly probable that Gospel sections
were recited in public worship as well as in the
classes of catechumens. It was so in the earliest
times of which we have record (Justin Martyr,
Apology, § 6y), and it may well have been so much
i.
earlier than that, yea, even in Apostolic days.

The Christians inherited from the Jews a division
of time into weeks of seven days each. At first
Christian assemblies met
synagogue, and in the
on the Saturday (James Acts ix. 20, etc.).
ii. 2 ;
When the Christians separated themselves from

the Jews they met on Sunday (Acts xx. 7). And
although week-day services were not unknown, and
Good Friday with other holy days became sacred,
the " Lord's Day " retained its peculiar pre-eminence,
and Easter Day was the greatest of all Sundays in
the year.
Can we doubt that on Easter Day, Good Friday,*
Palm Sunday, and Passion Sunday (to use modern
terms), those Gospel sections which narrated the
events which all Christians were thinking of, were
selected for repetition?

In the warmth of their first love services were
held every day, celebrations of the Eucharist at
every meal, and catechetical classes were always
at work. But as time went on daily business
demanded and the religious standard of
attention,
the synagogue became the religious standard of the
Church. Catechizing would gradually be confined
* The name Quartodeciman proves this. See page 172.
S. MARK'S ORDER 13
to the young, and the recitation of Gospel sections

in public worship would meet the wants of the old.
Now synagogue the Law was divided into
in the
sections, every Sabbath in a cycle of three
one for
years. The Christians, whether they adopted the
Jewish table of lessons or not, certainly read the Old
Testament in public worship. At whatever date
they began to recite the Gospel sections also and —
I think it must have been at a very early date
there would be a tendency to take them in regular

course ; in fact, sooner or later every Sunday would
be provided with what we call a " Gospel " of its own.
Greek lectionaries provide a Gospel for every day
in the year. Western liturgies provide one for every
Sunday and high-day. The practice of doing this
goes back, as far as we can trace, into the unknown
past. It may have extended a good deal further
back than the time at which our four Gospels were
received as canonical, into the older period, when
every church had an oral Gospel of its own.
If this were so, we should expect to see some
traces of the old divisions in our present Gospels.
It ought to be possible to divide them easily and
naturally into fifty or fifty-one lessons ; for a lunar
year consists of about 354J days, and therefore con-
tained fifty or oftener fifty-one Sundays."^
Now remarkable that S. Mark's Gospel in the
it is
Westcott and Hort text is divided into forty-eight

paragraphs, two or three of which are long and readily
admit of division.
* Intercalated months (see page i68) would be provided for by
repetifion.
In the case of S. Matthew and S. Luke those
editors have divided the Gospels into a large number
of paragraphs, some of which consist of a single
verse, and could not have formed a lesson. But
if we
turn to the revised Table of Lessons now
used in the Church of England, we find S. Matthew's
Gospel divided into fifty-one lessons, S. Luke's into
forty-seven. As far as S. Matthew goes, nothing
could be more satisfactory. With S. Luke the case
is not so favourable. His is the longest Gospel of the
four, and I have for some time contended that chapters
i., ii., iii. 23-38 are comparatively late additions to
it,which never formed part of the primitive oral
teaching. It would, however, be quite easy to
divide this Gospel somewhat differently from the
way adopted by the revisers of the Table of Lessons,
whose design was to serve the present age, and not to
discover the ancient landmarks.
Ifbe true that at a comparatively early date S.
it
Luke's Gospel was already divided into fifty-one

lessons, each of which was connected with a par-
ticular Sunday of the year, it is plain that whatever
additions were subsequently made in his work, must
have been done by lengthening some of the lessons.
And as this could obviously only be permitted within
narrow limits, he would be compelled to distribute
any new logia which reached him, over a large
number of the lessons. And this consideration will
help to explain their present position in his Gospel,
which, as we shall shortly see, is so different from that
which they occupy in S. Matthew.
If there really was an attempt to provide every
S. MARK'S ORDER 15
Sunday with a Gospel of its own, we shall under-

stand why the formation of Gospel sections pro-
ceeded rapidly at first and then ceased ; we shall
understand why all our Gospels are so short and
contain so little which is not essential we shall ;
understand how Mark's order became fixed. And

S.
although I am very far from insisting that the idea
is more than a speculation, I claim that it should not
be dismissed as unworthy of consideration. We
must not allow our own prejudices to obscure our
perception of truth.
If the Gospels for the day in the English Book of
Common Prayer, from Christmas to Ascension Day,
were put together into one volume, with the aid of a
few editorial notes, they would present the reader
with a work which would be very similar to what
Papias declares S. Mark's Gospel to be. It would
give a rough approximation to the true sequence of
events in the main particulars, but it would not be
chronological in detail. The bulk of it would be
arranged for edification, rather than for history.

Howcompletely unchronological S. Mark's Gospel
is, Ihave shown in the introduction to my Synopsis
of the Gospels. I need not, therefore, pursue the
subject now, save only to impress on the reader the
supreme importance of this fundamental question.
The ordinary commentator assumes that our Gospels
are arranged chronologically, and in his endeavours
to harmonize one with the other, produces so many
tortuous explanations as to do violence to the faith of
the simple. Once admit that our Gospels are arranged
on a different plan, and all these difficulties cease.
III.
S. MATTHEW'S LOGIA
THE
papyrus
recent discovery and
containing "Sayings of Jesus,"
publication
had
of the
if it
done nothing would have been useful as an

else,
object lesson in the meaning of the word logion,*

S. Matthew's logia, of which Papias speaks, were
probably similar in form to those on the papyrus.
There is good reason to think that they possessed no
more clue to the occasion of utterance than the
simple preface "Jesus saith," which is there used.
And they were probably often as little connected
with each other in subject-matter or sequence of
thought, as are these sayings.
S. Matthew (Papias writes, according to the well-
attested Vulgate reading) "procured their compila-
tion" {(TvveTaâTo). That is to say, he superintended
the work, rather than produced it. Multitudes of eye
and ear witnesses contributed their recollections. He
sifted and arranged them, tested them from what he
personally remembered, and authorised their recep-
tion into the body of Church teaching.
If the various reading crwey/aai/raro be correct,
Papias will have committed himself to the assertion
that S. Matthew caused them to be written. This,
* On this question see below, page 270.
16
S. MATTHEW'S LOGIA 17
according to my belief, is less probable ; and Papias,

if he really said that, may have been mistaken. For
there was a prejudice against writing in Jerusalem,
and the variations between S. Matthew and S. Luke,
both in wording and in order, are best explained by
oral teaching.
As to the general scope and contents of these logia,
I see no reason to doubt that they correspond to
what I have put into the second division of my
Synopsis, where they can be conveniently studied.
At the same time I fully admit that the lines which
separate my fourth division from the second are very
faint. In no case can we feel certain that any
particular logion belonged to the one division rather
than the other.
Papias continues, that "each man translated S.
Matthew's logia as he was able." This important
statement need not imply that the logia were read
aloud in Aramaic during divine service, and rendered
into Greek by a viva voce translator, like the Old
Testament lessons in the Hebrew synagogue. Nor
need it imply that many translations of varying
merit were in use. The verb is in the singular, and
" each man " does not necessarily imply very many.
Papias means that several persons essayed the task.
To me his curious wording conveyed the idea that
he himself, in his younger days, had been one of
them. His great work in five books, consisted, I
understand him to say, of translations of these logia,
accompanied by a running commentary, and inter-
spersed with numerous, and often apocryphal
additions, which he obtained from oral sources. But
C
i8 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
thereis nothing in what Papias says to prevent us
from supposing that in or about 50 A.D., an oral

Greek version of the logia was in use at Jerusalem
in Hellenic circles.
Translation implies a certain amount of sacrifice.
The precise meaning of the original words can never

be reproduced. And if the two oral editions the —
—
Aramaic and the Greek circulated side by side for
nearly twenty years in Jerusalem, it is certain that
modifications and corrections would be made.
Generally the Greek would be corrected from
the Aramaic, but sometimes the Aramaic would be
influencedby the Greek. All these complications
must be taken into account by anyone who would
understand the formation of our Gospels.
Certain logia^ notably those connected with John
the Baptist, our Lord's baptism, and His temptation,
required some historical setting to make them intelli-
gible. And it is not surprising that they borrowed

from Mark's oral Gospel a few words for that
S.
purpose. But whether the logia in the Church of
Jerusalem were ever combined with S. Mark's oral
Gospel so as to form one body of teaching, we cannot
say. There is much to incline us to believe that to
the last they circulated there as a separate cycle of
oral teaching. All that we can see our way at
present to affirm, is that in S. Matthew and S. Luke
they are blended with other matter into one history,
yet in such a way that the process of blending has
been done by, or for, these evangelists independently
and quite differently.
Let us take S. Luke first. He at any rate had no
personal knowledge of the sequence of events to

guide or hamper him. Unless a logion contained
which settled its date, he could not
internal evidence
decide of himself to which period of our Lord's
ministry it belonged.
Now, judging from their present condition, and from
the degree of their verbal agreement with S. Matthew,
I infer that the logia reached S. Luke a few at a
time, and in different ways, (i) Some came over-
land through Asia Minor, as S. Mark's Gospel had
done. These would pass from church to church.
The process would take several years, and the words
would be a good deal disturbed. (2) Others came
by sea, being either {a) brought by a Christian
passenger from Palestine ; or {b) sent by letter.
The majority of them came in Greek, but certainly

(c) a few in the original Aramaic*
These various modes of transport will account for
the fact that some logia of great length are almost
verbatim the same in two Gospels, others vary,
sometimes considerably, while a few are clearly new
translations of the same original.
Now if these logia had come all at once, S. Luke
might have felt overwhelmed by them and might
have written to Jerusalem for further information
about their chronology. But receiving them, as he
probably did, a few at a time, he would be the more
likely to deal with them on his own responsibility.
He was in this dilemma either he must omit ;
them from his teaching, or he must find a place

* For examples see Introduction to the Synopsis of the Gospels
page viii.
for them in his lessons. The facts indicate that
he chose the latter course. A certain number of
them were sufficiently ear-marked by their subject
and were put into their proper places, but the great
mass were crowded into that "Travel Narrative,"
which we shall examine in the next paper. Suffice
it now to say that the "Travel Narrative" is, in
my opinion, simply a collection of undated materials,

arranged roughly for convenience of teaching.
S. Luke was a Gentile and worked for Gentiles.
More methods were in favour with his pupils
literary
than were tolerated in Palestine. Writing materials
were not tabooed and so, though he can hardly have
;
Gospel before So A.D., his materials

finally written his
once received were well preserved. His edition of
the /o£-za, though very incomplete, seems in many
cases to be more original than S. Matthew's. In
S. Matthew the sentences are smoother and more
rotund, the effect of oral repetition during a much
longer period. Thus belief in the oral hypothesis
gives us freedom in the face of facts. We have
to consider (i) at what stage in its formation and
after what amount of attrition an evangelist received
a section (2) what
;
further modification it under-
went in his hands. A period of thirty or forty
years, during which the records were in a more
or less fluid state, will account for the facts. In
S. Matthew may be nearer the original,
one particular
inanother S. Luke, and that in the same logion.
They both remain reasonable men and honest
workers.
We do not know in what Church S. Matthew's
Gospel was formed. A community of Greek-

speaking Jews is demanded, at some distance from
Palestine, for geographical details were not familiar
to the Alexandria satisfies the con-
compilers.
ditions ; and there are some things such as the —
flight into Egypt, and the prophecy, " Out of Egypt
did I call My Son" —
which favour that direction.
More than this we cannot say.
The second edition of S. Mark forms the ground-
work of S. Matthew's oral Gospel, and indicates the
date at which the Church was founded which used it,
considerably later than the foundation of the Church
at Philippi in which S. Luke laboured.
The same difficulty which had confronted S. Luke
about arranging the logia into the Marcan frame-
work, appears to have confronted the authorities at
Alexandria (or whatever other place is the true one)
but they settled it in a different way. Instead of
one great gap into which they accumulated undated
materials, they had five smaller gaps, viz., (i) the
Sermon on the Mount; (2) the Charge to the Twelve;
(3) the Parables in Matthew xiii. (4) the woes on the
;
Pharisees; (5) the eschatological discourses. Amongst

these most of the logia have been distributed.
We cannot undertake to say whether S. Luke or
S. Matthew comes nearest to the truth in these
arrangements. We only
warn the reader against the
common assumption that one or other of them, if not
both, has always, or even usually, given us the real
occasion of utterance.
Our reason for believing in a literary rather than a
chronological setting, will be given further in the
papers which follow. They arise from a comparison
of the order in S. Matthew and S. Luke. Enormous
difficulties will be overcome by the frank acceptance
of the fact that imperfect knowledge has led to its
natural consequences. Modern commentators admit

this grudgingly and in a few cases. But if the
principle is conceded, there is no reason why its
extension should not be carried as far as the facts

demand.
IV.
S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE"

(S. Luke ix. 51— xviii. 14.)
O LUKE'S Gospel consists, roughly speaking, of

O • four parts, viz.
Preliminary matter, chapter i., ii.
First Marcan portion, chapters iii. — ix. 50.
"Travel Narrative," chapters ix. 51 xviii. — 14.

Second Marcan portion, chapters xviii. 15 — xxiv.
In the Marcan portions do not mean to imply I
that all the materials are derived from

S. Mark.
Much non- Marcan matter is interspersed. But
S. Mark furnishes the groundwork. His history
and chronology are S. Luke's guide.
But in the great "Travel Narrative" this is no
longer the case. Here at last S. Mark is entirely
deserted. Except an occasional brief "scrap"
nothing is taken from him, and S. Luke, I hold, is
left without a guide.
The facts are startling, and should be fully appre-
ciated. This huge slice — consisting of nearly nine
chapters, or more than the whole
one-third of
Gospel — is inserted between what probably were in
the first edition of S. Mark two consecutive verses.
23
For S. Luke ix. 50 corresponds to S Mark ix. 40
and Luke xviii. 15 to S. Mark x. 13. The twenty-
two verses of S. Mark which intervene have every
mark of belonging to the second edition of his
Gospel. Luke, therefore, having closely followed
S.
S. Mark for seven chapters, abruptly abandons him.
Nine chapters later on he abruptly returns to him at
the very point of severance, and never leaves him
again for any length of time.
Harmonists account for the facts in the following
way: These nine chapters of S. Luke narrate, they
say, a ministry in Peraea, which S. Mark for some
reason omitted to notice, but S. Luke has recorded at
great length. The Peraean ministry (they continue)
lasted about six months, and included one or prob-
ably several visits to Jerusalem prior to that last
journey which is described by S. Mark.* This ex-
planation, I submit, satisfies none of the conditions
of the problem.
The nine chapters are introduced by the remark-
able words, " And it came to pass that as the days of
His assumption were being fulfilled He hardened
His face to go to Jerusalem." No one questions that
" His assumption " means His ascension into heaven.
The phrase, " the days were being fulfilled " occurs
again in S. Luke, "When the day of Pentecost was
being fulfilled " (Acts ii. i), the only difference being
that " day " there is in the singular, " days " here is in
the plural. Admitting fully the vagueness of the
Hebraic use of the word "days," I nevertheless ask any
candid reader whether a space of six months is sug-
* Ellicott's Lectures on the Life of our Lord^ p. 236 fF.
S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE" 25
gested, or indeed is to be tolerated by the expression.

No ; a space of time not greatly exceeding a fort-
night is in S. Luke's mind, and the journey of which
he makes so much is certainly the final departure from
Galilee. On that point we can hardly be mistaken.
S. Luke, in short, has crowded into one brief
fortnight a whole mass of the most weighty teaching.
His conception is that as our Lord approached the
end of His ministry, His greatest wisdom was poured
forth, His perfect love was manifested, and the
approaching departure colours everything which
intervened.
This is a noble conception. S. Luke was a great
artistand a consummate historian. But his personal
knowledge of the events which he describes was
small, and his informants generally spoke at second-
hand. Let us consider whether his arrangement is
chronological.
The division consists of discourse matter. For
although it contains three miracles and two other
historical incidents, these are all subordinated to the
discourse which accompanies them.
In the division there are 20 scraps from S. Mark
belonging to the first division in my Synopsis, 58
logia fromS. Matthew belonging to the second
division, 15 Lucan narratives belonging to the third
division, 35 fragments from anonymous sources (where-
of six are common to S. Matthew and S. Luke; of the
rest, three are historical and 26 are sayings). These
belong to my fourth division. The whole is blended
together by about 50 editorial notes, of which 14 are
something more than mere literary connecting links.
26 N£W TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
It is important to collect all the notices of time
and place which these nine chapters contain sub-
sequent to the introductory verse, which has already-
been considered.
And first, those of place
(i) "They come to a village of Samaritans." (ix.
52.)
(2) " They went to another village." (ix. 56.)
(3)
" And as they went, He entered into a certain
village." (x. 38.)
(4)
" And it came to pass, as He was in a certain
place." (xi. i.)
(5) "And He was journeying through cities and

villages, teaching, and making journey to
Jerusalem." (xiii. 22.)
(6) "And it came to pass, as He was journeying

to Jerusalem, that He passed between
Samaria and Galilee." (xvii. 11.)
supposed scene of this hypothetical six
Peraea, the
months' ministry, is neither mentioned nor hinted at.
Jerusalem is the only city, Galilee and Samaria the
only countries named. S. Luke, who in the Acts of
the Apostles shows a perfect passion for geographical
details, and gives the name of nearly every city and
village through which S. Paul passes, does nothing
of the kind here. "A certain place," "a certain
village," is the reiterated formula. A certain village !
Every schoolboy knows that one of those villages

was Bethany (S. Luke x. 38), and that it was within
two miles of Jerusalem. But S. Luke, it would seem,
does not know, and the harmonists are obliged to
assume visits to Jerusalem, of which he makes no
mention, to account for what he says.
S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE'* 27
Now consider his notices of time :
(i) "After these things." (x. i.)
(2) "At that very hour." (x. 21.)
(3) "And it came to pass, while He was saying

these things." (xi. 27.)
(4) "While He spake"* (xi. 37.)
(5) "Meanwhile." (xii. i.)
(6) "At that very time." (xiii. i.)
(7) "At that very hour." (xiii. 31.)
There are thirty- two sections in the division,
twenty-five of which have no note of time or place,

except an occasional "after these things," "at that
very hour," which, like S. Mark's "and imme-
diately," are, I maintain, only literary connecting
links. When section after section is introduced by
the simple phrase " one who can
And He said," to
read between the lines S. Luke is professing that he
does not know the date. My contention is, that both
S. the writer of the Gospel according to
Luke and
S. Matthew, had S. Mark's oral Gospel as their
groundwork and their guide to arrangement. I will
* I cannot agree with Dr.Plummer {Commentary on S. Luke, iiL 21)

that this must be translated "After He had spoken." Except in the
Indicative or the Participle, and in oblique narration the Infinitive or
Optative, where these stand for the Indicative of direct, the Greek
tenses are timeless
; in fact they are not tenses, strictly speaking, but
moods, they indicate the quality of the action, whether it is
for
momentary and complete, or continuous and repeated ; time is more
frequently expressed by the mood. The difference between iv ry
XaXetj/ ry XaX^crai I take to be hardly more than that between
and iv
" while He was speaking " and " while He spake," of which the former
is the more natural expression, though S. Luke is fond of the latter.
See Professor Burton's excellent manual. The New Testametit Moods

attd Tenses y § 109.
not say to chronology, for it is very slightly chrono-
logical. But, besides they had a large quantity
this,
of undated materials, chiefly logia^ the great mass of

which contained nothing which to that age would
indicate the date or the occasion on which the words
were spoken. Their task was to blend the two sources
of information into one narrative. S. Matthew chose
one plan for arrangement, S. Luke another. If S.
Mark furnished a convenient peg on which to hang
materials, S. Matthew availed himself of it. Every
logion which at all corresponded to it in thought was
put there. And thus in his Gospel the non-Marcan
matter is, for the most
grouped into five great
part,
—
discourses: (i) The Sermon on the Mount; (2) the
Charge to the Twelve (3) the seven parables (chapter
;
xiii.); (4) the woes against the Pharisees; (5) the
eschatological discourses every one of which we

;
shall hereafter show to be conflations.

S. Luke did not, as a rule, care to avail himself
of the opportunities which S. Mark gave him. He
had one great gap at the end of his ninth chapter,
and into this he gradually collected most of the
non-Marcan sections which he decided to accept.
Hence, this " Travel Narrative " teems with teach-
ing which really belonged to every stage in our
Lord's ministry. we are
If capable of judging from
internal evidence, much of the discourse which is
there accumulated appertained to the earliest days.

S.Luke has put it there, not because he thought,
much less knew, this to be its real occasion of
speaking, but because he did not know.
That this is the true view is shown by the fact
S. LUKE'S "TRAVEL NARRATIVE" 29
that S. Luke differs so widely from S. Matthew in

his arrangement of these sections but with this
;
subject and the questions which it involves we shall

deal in the next two papers. Only I would warn
the reader against making the common but un-
warranted assumption that, whereas the materials
which are common to S. Matthew and S. Luke are,
to a great extent at least, misplaced, those materials

which are peculiar to S. Luke are always in the
correct place. If S. Luke adopted a literary arrange-
ment one case, it
in the is reasonable to suppose that
he has done the same in the other. To speak of
a great trilogy of parables, and suppose that they
were all uttered at the same sitting, seems to me to
be a fatal misapprehension. If the parables of the
Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man
and Lazarus, were spoken on the same day to the
same audience, the utterance of one would surely
have the effect of checking meditation on the others,
that is to say of defeating the very purpose for which
a parable was spoken.
IDENTICAL PASSAGES
PROPOSE in the present paper to compare

I S. Matthew vi. 25-33 with S. Luke xii. 22-31.
I shall give the results in English where possible,
but for facility of comparison I shall use my own
Synopsis of the Gospels, in which the passages are
arranged side by side in thirty parallel lines on
pages 108, 109.
Eight out of these thirty parallels are verbally
identical, but the remaining twenty-two present
certain differences which may be classified thus
Five times the order of the words within a
(i)
line is not quite the same. (2) Seventeen lines are
somewhat shorter in one Gospel than in the other,
S. Matthew presenting the longer recension in
twelve cases, S. Luke in five. For example, S.
Luke writes, "If ye therefore are not even capable
of that which is least," but S. Matthew reduces this
line to the single monosyllable "and." Again, S.
Luke gives " Who have no storehouse nor barn,"
where S. Matthew hasNor gather into barns."
"
On the contrary, S. Matthew's twice-repeated " Your

heavenly Father," becomes in S. Luke on one
occasion "God," on another "Your Father." For
30
IDENTICAL PASSAGES 31
S. Matthew's Be not anxious for your life what

"
ye must eat or what ye must drink" S. Luke gives

" Be not anxious for life what ye must eat." In the
twenty-ninth verse, however, he alludes to drinking
as well as eating. S. Matthew mentions "the lilies
of the field'' when S. Luke has "the lilies," but S.

Matthew speaks of "the nations," S. Luke "the
nations of the world!' (3) Twice S. Matthew puts
a sentence into the form of a rhetorical question,
where S. Luke is content with an assertion. S.
Matthew bids us ''Look at the fowls," ''Learn the

lesson of the lilies." S. Luke, with better effect,
repeats the same verb "consider." (4) Instead of

S. Matthew's vague expression, " the fowls of the
heaven," S.Luke specifies " the ravens." S. Matthew,
however, makes the whole argument turn on three
definite necessaries of life —food, drink, raiment
recurring to these again and again ; S. Luke is more
discursive :
" Why are ye anxious about the other
things P" " Do not live in a state of suspense." (5) In
the twenty-seventh verse S. Luke has written singular
verbs after the neuter plural subject according to
Greek rule ; S. Matthew puts the verbs into the
plural in accordance with the sense. (6) Lastly, S.
Matthew has the classical form ajULcpiewvciv, while
S. Luke gives the Hellenistic form a/iKpidêi.
Such are the principal variations. Lest the reader
should carry away an exaggerated notion of their
number, I have deemed it desirable to count the
words as well as the lines. I find that S. Matthew
has used 169 words and S. Luke 156. Of these 124
are the same in both Gospels, while only twenty-two
are different S. Matthew, however, has added
twenty-three words which have no parallels in S.
Luke, and S. Luke ten words which have no parallels
in S. Matthew.
It is important to observe that the general sense
is the same in both Gospels. Such divergences as

occur touch only its expression. Nor are these
divergences greater than is usual in the Synoptists.
On the contrary, it may be safely affirmed, that
wherever three Gospels narrate what all commen-
tators admit to be the same event, greater dis-
crepancies in the wording are to be found than exist
in these verses. I have therefore selected this as a
test case for the comparison of the critical with the
harmonistic view of the structure of the Gospels. How-
ever widely critics differ from each other in detail,
they would unite with me in maintaining that the
passage of S. Matthew which we are considering is
identical with that in S. Luke, that it came from the

same original source, and from the same Greek version
of that source ; but harmonists are constrained by
Lord repeated His
their principles to assert that our
words, and that S. Matthew has given us what He
said upon one occasion, S. Luke what He said upon
another.
Our task is to discover which of these rival views
is true. And the matter is one of serious importance,
because this is The same question
a typical case.
and it must be decided
arises in scores of other cases,
one way or other by every one who undertakes to
expound the Gospels.
The divergence between S. Matthew and S. Luke
respecting the occasion on which this logion was

spoken is it can be; for S. Matthew
almost as great as
puts it Sermon on the Mount, close to the
into the
beginning of our Lord's ministry, S. Luke puts it
into the " Travel Narrative,"
which he assigns to the
close of His ministry. According to the common
view a period of about three years intervened
between these two dates.
Now when two evangelists differ respecting the
time and place of one of our Lord's utterances, three
alternatives present themselves, (i) Our Lord may,
as the harmonists assume, have repeated His words,
and one evangelist has recorded the first occasion,
the other the second. (2) OnQ evangelist has placed
the saying into its historical setting, the other has
arranged it on some different plan. (3) Neither
evangelist has given the true chronology, but both
have adopted (presumably for lack of better informa-
tion) a literary arrangement.
Of these hypotheses the first appears at the outset
to be the simplest and most probable. That our
Lord repeated many of His sayings is almost certain.
Why, therefore, should we hesitate to accept that
solution of the difficulty in the present case?
We should have to believe that a complex utter-
ance, thirty lines in length, was spoken twice with,
at any rate, a long interval between the times of
speaking. Our Lord was perfect man, and spoke
to us as man. Such a feat is possible for man
under either of two conditions; (i) if he write
down his sermons and read them from the manu-
script (2) if he learn them by heart and repeat
;
D
them frequently. No one claims that our Lord
used either of these devices. Yet it would seem to
be a denial of the Incarnation to think that during
His earthly sojourn He could, or at any rate would,
reproduce long speeches without them.
But in arguing about our Lord's knowledge as
man and His state of subjection and obedience
when He wore our flesh upon earth, we are out of
our depth, and dare not pronounce with confidence.
Granted, therefore, that He mayhave willed to
speak the same words twice so long an
after
interval, the further question arises about the re-
collection and preservation of His utterances. How
was that effected? There is good reason to think
that he spoke in Aramaic how comes it that the
;
Greek of these logia is the same? and how could

two spectators recall so long and elaborate a
speech, years after it was uttered, with so few
variations? If they were supernaturally helped to
do so, why are there any variations at all? The
extreme advocates of verbal inspiration would say
Because when our Lord repeated His sayings He
deliberately made certain changes, and these have
been faithfully reproduced in the Gospels. But
few now would care to plead for such a Judaic
and mechanical theory of inspiration, against which
every page of Scripture appears to most of us to
protest.
This case does not stand alone. Itmust be
considered in connexion with others. For in the
non-Marcan sections of S, Luke there are seventy-
five passages which are parallel to passages in S.
Matthew, and I have deemed it important to give

a complete list of them, following S. Matthew's
order, that the reader may see for himself at a
glance how systematically Luke diverges from
S.
it. Indeed, it may be said that unless a logion is
very definitely fixed to a particular date by its
subject-matter, S. Luke invariably arranges it in a

way quite different from S. Matthew's.
S. Matthew.
36 NEW TESTAMENT JPROBLEMS
$. Matthew.
S. Matthew.
3§ NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
one of them always gives the historical occasion, the
other departs from it. As long as our first Gospel
was believed to proceed from the pen of S. Matthew,
it was naturally thought that he, an eye-witness, had
a special claim to be heard but when it was per-

;
ceived* that our first Gospel is a composite work,

and that neither internal evidence, nor external
testimony, permit it in its present form to be
attributed to one of the Twelve, the case is altered.
If the logia circulated inthe Church as "Sayings
of our Lord," apart from dates, persons, and places,
we have no reason to think that the editor of the
first Gospel was in a better position than S. Luke to
discover their true chronology. If the evangelists
were more anxious to record, in a readable and con-
venient form, the utterances of our Lord, than to
discover lost dates and occasions, we must accept
what they have given us. To be wise above that
which is written is mere folly. Our Gospels are not
formal histories but Gospels.
The harmonistic view is not the ancient view.
Tatian, Ammonius, and Eusebius identify similar
passages as fearlessly as a modern critic. We are
only sweeping away some mediaeval traditionalism
when we invite the reader to do the same. Too
long have our commentators wasted their strength
in harmonizing. The first step towards better work
is to recognise the impossibility of their task. Nor
is it enough to admit, as modern commentators
Luke or S.
generally do, that a few speeches in S.
Matthew may possibly be misplaced. The harmonists
• Composition of the Four Gospels^ p. 6i.
have too long had their way. It is time that the
critic superseded them on entirely different lines.
The synoptic Gospels, I hold, are seldom arranged

chronologically. Their divergences from each other
abundantly prove that. And even when they agree,
they do so by following S. Mark's order, which is
unchronological. We have in the synoptists a series
of "recollections" rather than a formal biography.
Further illustration of (his will be given in the next
paper.
VI.
CONFLATIONS
LET the reader compare S. Mark 7-8 with

i.
^ S. Matthew iii. 7-12 and S. Luke iii. 7-17,

inwhich passages we are presented with the Synoptic
account of John the Baptist's preaching. S. Mark
has devoted two verses to it, S. Matthew six, and
S. Luke eleven.
That Mark's record is the primitive nucleus^
S.
round which the later additions circulated, is proved
(i) from the well-established priority of S. Mark in
general (2) from the brevity of S. Mark's narrative
;
here (3) from the fact that it figures not only in

;
three Gospels, but (with a few variations) in the

fourth; nay, quotations of it are found in several
passages of the Acts of the Apostles. The non-
Marcan portions, on the other hand, are found in
one Gospel or in two at the most clearly they were ;
not so widely known.

At a later date in the Church of Jerusalem S.
Mark's record was supplemented by the addition
of two logia^ and in the Western Church by the
further addition of a third. It is reasonable to
suppose that the two earlier logia (which are found
in S. Matthew and S. Luke) were collected under
4Q
CONFLATIONS 41
S. Matthew's guidance, and are therefore rightly-

classed undermy second division. But, of course,
they may be of later date, and so belong to my
fourth. In any case, all three logia may with some
confidence be assumed to proceed from some disciple
or disciples of John the Baptist. The two, which
are found in two Gospels, are unusually alike in
both. Nine out of the fourteen lines are verbatim
the same. The order of the words is maintained.
One line reads "fruits" instead of "fruit," another
"begin" instead of "think," a third adds "also,"
and the two remaining lines use infinitives instead
of the future indicative so slight and immaterial
;
are the variations. Plainly S. Luke received the

passage in writing, or by an express messenger, and
not after passing through many minds and memories.
It is to be noticed further that the close resem-
blance between S. Matthew and S. Luke in these
logia extends also into the Marcan portion, in which
these evangelists agree with one another against
S. Mark in the order of the lines and in the
wording, except in one remarkable instance, in which
S. Matthew differs from S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John,
and the Acts of the Apostles in writing "Whose
shoes I am not worthy to carry" instead of "the
latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop
down and untie."
We are presented therefore with a case of
"mixture" possessing much interest. Some critics
have proclaimed that S. Matthew's account must be
primary and S. Mark's secondary, but we are by
no means compelled to admit that; indeed the
weakened metaphor about the shoes seems to me
to be fatal to such an assumption. Under the oral
hypothesis it is easy to urge (i) that S. Mark him-
self, during forty years of oral teaching, sometimes
unconsciously altered his original wording, so that
one of the other Gospels occasionally retain the
older reading and indeed, when they both unite
;
against him, there is a presumption that this is the
case (2) in several instances S. Luke, upon receiving

;
a fuller account, has discarded S. Mark in favour

of the later teaching. For the friend who sent him
these new logia sent the whole section in which they
were embedded, and not the new portions only, and
S. Luke has adopted it entire (3) it is probable
;
that Mark 7-8 was no part of the first edition

i.
of S. Mark's oral Gospel, but, like the account of the

Baptist's food and clothing, first appeared in the
second edition with which, as we have seen, S. Luke
was not acquainted. We are, therefore, at full liberty
to gather from the passages themselves the lessons
which they teach respecting their origin, being in no
way fettered to the idea of S. Matthew's priority.
S. Luke, in the course of his travels, must have
come some of John the Baptist's
in contact with
disciples.There was Apollos, and the twelve men
at Ephesus, "who had been baptized into John's
baptism." Doubtless there were many others, and
all would preserve recollections of their martyred
leader's teaching.
Probably from one of them S. Luke obtained the
further logion which he has incorporated into his
Gospel. It runs thus
CONFLATIOxNS 43
"And the multitudes asked him, saying, What

must we do ? And he said, Let him that hath
two tunics impart one of them to the poor man,
and let him that is rich in food do likewise. And
taxgatherers also came to be baptized, and said
to him. Teacher, what must we do? And he said
to them, Collect no more than that which is
appointed you. And soldiers on service asked him,
And what must we do? And he said, Buffet
no man, nor play the informer, and make both
ends meet with your pay." *
This logion S. Luke inserted in the midst of the
others. But as he dislocated the speech in doing so,
he pieced it together again by an editorial note, after
his habitual manner, viz»: "And as the people were
expecting, and all men were reasoning in their hearts
concerning John, whether he was the Messiah, John
answered them all, saying
."
—
There is one other point to be noticed. We have
drawn attention to the close verbal correspondence
between S. Matthew and S. Luke in the logia it :
is important to show how widely they differ in the
historical fact. S. Matthew says that John's outburst

of denunciation was occasioned by the advent of
certain Pharisees and Sadducees, and that it was
* The translation, " Be content with your wages," is wrong. Con-
tentment is not a Christian virtue, but a Mahommedan vice. No
man should be satisfied with his attainments, temporal, intellectual,
or spiritual. Progress is our watchword. S. John bids the soldiers
not to get into debt. Similarly S. Paul did not mean "
have learned
I
in whatsoever state I am therewith to be content," but " I have learned

to make the best of things, to live within my income, however small
it be." This meaning alone satisfies the context, as well as is required
by the word. (Phil. iv. il.)
addressed to them ; S. Luke says that it was
spoken to the multitudes, and this he supports in
another editorial note when he reverts to the history
of John. " All the people when they heard it, and
the taxgatherers* justified God, having been baptized
with John's baptism but the Pharisees and the
;
lawyers rejected the counsel of God towards them-

selves, having not been baptized by him" (vii. 29-30.)
Now S. Matthew's narrative is a "conflation," for
the primitive account has been welded with two new
logia, until the whole forms one complete section.
Still more is S. Luke's narrative a conflation, for the
primitive account has been welded with three new

logia, by the aid of a long editorial note, which
solders them together.

The result of this welding is that fragments cease
to be fragmentary. As flints can be fitted together
and with the help of mortar make a solid wall, so
isolated logia were compacted into a Gospel section.
S. Luke shows considerable artistic skill in piecing
his materials together, and uses plenty of cement
when there is need for it. But in the case which we
are now considering' no one is deceived by the process.
No one supposes that these speeches of the Baptist
were all spoken to the same audience, and on the
same day. It is clear that they are fragments, mere
samples of addresses which were delivered daily for
many weeks or months.
So far we have explained what a conflation is, and
we have shown that there are conflations in at least
two of our Gospels now let us see whether there is
:
* S. Luke iii. 12.

CONFLATIONS 45
reason to think that any of the speeches attributed

to our Lord are conflations.
In Luke 14-28 we have a Gospel section. It
xi.
begins with the cure of a demonized mute. The

spectators are divided. Some admire the miracle,
others attribute it Our Lord replies to the
to Satan.
latter, was improbable that Satan
maintaining that it
should cast out Satan nay, rather the exorcism was

;
an indication that Messiah was stronger than Satan.

Some of the people were convinced by this appeal to
their reason, but many wavered and suspended their
judgement. To them our Lord addresses a warning.
Neutrality, in this case (He said) was impossible.
Anyone who attempted it would become Satan's
slave more than he was before. A woman from the
audience thereupon congratulates the Teacher's
mother on the possession of such a son, but our Lord
makes light of mere human ties. True happiness is
to be sought, He affirms, in finding out and doing
God's will.
Who can deny that the whole section, as S. Luke
presents it, coheres most closely? The sequence of
thought could hardly be more natural the actors ;
seem to stand before us. And yet when we examine

the other Gospels, we are forced to the dilemma
that either our Lord has repeated His words in the
way which was discredited in the last chapter, or
else S. Luke has welded together a number of isolated
utterances into one conflation. For the saying about
Satan casting put Satan is found in S. Mark
{Synopsis, pages 16, 17); not, however, in the first
edition of S. Mark which S. Luke used. The order
of the sections in S. Luke is decisive on that point,
more so is the wording, in which
still S. Luke agrees
with S. Matthew against S. Mark.
Mark, as usual, has given us the earliest form of
S.
this saying, which afterwards was expanded at
Jerusalem, under S. Matthew's superintendence, by
the addition of some new matter, for which room
was made by the curtailment of the original narrative.
Then the section in its Matthaean form was carried to
S. Luke without information about its date, and he
put it into a niche in his oral Gospel quite different
from that which it occupies in S. Mark or S. Matthew.

At a later date he expanded it by conflation with new
materials.
S. Mark's historical setting, which is obscured in
the other Gospels, is of the highest importance, for it
explains the process of that loss of popularity which

undoubtedly befell our Lord and enabled His enemies
ultimately to effect the crucifixion. He cannot be a
good man (it was argued) because He breaks the
Sabbath. His miracles, therefore, are not the works
of God. There remains but one other way to
account for them. He has sold Himself to Satan
and has received power from him.
In an age which firmly believed Satan to be
second only to God in wisdom, power, and ubiquity
this argument would come with a force which we
can hardly realise. We
should infer from S. Luke
that it was casually made by one of the spectators
from S. Matthew that a local Galilean Pharisee
brought it; it is only from S. Mark that we hear
of a special delegation from the Pharisees at
CONFLATIONS 47
Jerusalem. They, the trusted leaders of the people,

the divinely appointed guides of the blind, took upon
themselves to pronounce our Lord to be Satan's
vassal and we can understand the effect which their
;
words had. Thousands of simple folk would, sooner

or later, believe that you could only accept healing
from Christ at the price of losing your soul.
S. Mark says nothing about the cure of the mute
demoniac, nor can we feel at all sure that it really
happened on this occasion. It somewhat helps the

narrative. The sinister accusation would be more
pointed if made when an exorcism had just excited
popular feeling ; but this, of course, does not settle
the question. be genuine, S. Matthew
If the text
by a doublet says that the speech about the prince
of the demons helping to cast out demons was made
twice (ix. 34 = xii. 24); but Westcott and Hort
bracket it in the former case, and its removal would
much reduce complexity.
S. Matthew adds two logia which treat of the same
subject,but need not necessarily on that account
have been spoken at this time. " If I by Beelzebub
cast out demons, by whom do your pupils cast
them out?" And, "He that is not with Me is
against Me." These additions were made before the
sections were carried to S. Luke, for they appear
also in hi« Gospel in the same relative order, and
with nearly the same wording. One other logion
reached him afterwards in an isolated form, for
S. Matthew gives it as a fragment in a different
context (Matt. xii. 43-45) very slightly welded with
what precedes. S. Luke has found a much more
suitable place for it here, for it speaks of the exor-
cized demon seeking and finding none, but
rest
returning to the house from which he had departed
but, of course, its suitability does not prove that
S. Luke has given it in its real position.
Probably at a later date, S. Luke made three other
changes in his narrative. First he inserted the six-
teenth verse, "And others, tempting, sought from
Him This scrap comes from
a sign from heaven."
S. Mark viii. ii = Matt. xvL i, and has a complex
history which may be unravelled thus On one :
occasion our Lord was asked for a sign from heaven,

Le, a clap of thunder or a voice from the sky
this He positively refused to grant, as S. Mark tells
us. On another occasion He was asked for a sign,

i.e. a miracle, and He replied enigmatically that
He would give them the sign of Jonah. S. Mark
narrates the former occasion with the positive refusal.
S. Luke gives both cases (xi. i6, 29). S. Matthew
gives both, but confuses them by a doublet, for he
intrudes the words, " except the sign of Jonah," from
the second into the first also (xvi. 4; xii. 39) by a
not unusual mixture, produced unconsciously by the

assimilation of doublets.
Next S. Luke remodels verses 21, 22. Whether
he has done so on his own responsibility, to put
them into better literary form, or whether he has
received information from other spectators who had
heard them spoken, we need not now pronounce.
The general sense is the same, but the wording
is quite different from S. Matthew's, though S.
Matthew's order is observed.
CONFLATIONS 49
Thirdly, S. Luke appends the incident of the
woman from the multitude exclaiming on the happi-
ness of His earthly mother. This he obtains from
some private source. There is no trace of it in
the other Gospels, though its general meaning is
paralleled in Mark iii. 33-35 = Matt. xii. 48-50 = Luke
viii. 21.
Such is a conflation. It is a literary expedient,
justified by the lack of historical knowledge. If
S. Luke had been an eye-witness and had recollected
the exact occasion on which every utterance of our
Lord was published, he would not have resorted to
had much greater
conflations, for historical veracity
attraction for him than dramatic suitability. But
his knowledge being imperfect, and a heap of
undated logia lying before him, he was induced to
take refuge in conflation as the nearest approach
to the truth which was possible for him.
We felt no difficulty when we saw thatJohn the
Baptist's speech was a conflation. We must recog'
nise the same principle in our Lord's utterances also.
For this is not an isolated case. If it were, we
might be content to account for it by supposing
that there was a repetition of the same sayings.
But, if we set aside the longer parables, which form
complete discourses in themselves, we shall find that
all the other sayings of our Lord in S. Luke (except
those which He obtains from S. Mark) are worked
up There are in this Gospel just
into conflations.
twenty of these conflations. Sometimes they are
very loosely strung together, as in xvi. 13-18,
xvii. i-io; sometimes they are most elaborately
EI
compacted, as in xiv. 1-24. But conflations they
are, admirably adapted for oral teaching or public
recitation, but not to be pressed in the matter of
chronology. It is on comparing them with the other
Gospels that we discover their present form to be

due to independent editorial work. As the subject
is fundamental, and has not been pointed out before,
I append a detailed analysis of these twenty dis-
courses.
1. A Visit to Nazareth (Luke iv. 16-30).
Here much new material has been welded with a
few sentences from S. Mark (Mark vi. 1-4 = Matt
xiii. 53-57)-
The Call of
2. SS. Simon (Andrew), James,
AND John (Luke v. i-ii). —
Here some new
material containing the " draught of fishes " has been
welded with Mark i. 16-20= Matt. iv. 18-22.
3. The Sermon on the Mount (Luke vi.
20^-49). — One Marcan scrap (Mark is welded
iv. 24^)
with eleven logia from S. Matthew, and two from
other sources. Of the eleven Matthaean logia nine
come from S. Matthew's " Sermon on the Mount,"
one of them is a doublet (Matt. vii. 16-18 = Matt. xii.
33-35), one comes from the Charge to the Twelve
(Matt. X. 24-25), and one from a fragment (Matt. xv.
14). How completely both Sermons are conflations
is shown by the fact that S. Matthew's contains 107
verses, of which only fifty-eight have parallels in

S.Luke. Of these fifty-eight, however, only twenty-
six have parallels in S. Luke's "Sermon on the
Mount," the remaining thirty-two are scattered over
seven other chapters of S. Luke,
CONFLATIONS 51
4. Discourse at the Anointing of our

Lord's Feet (Luke vii. 36-50). {Synopsis, pages 82,
83.) — Two explanations of this very difficult section
compete for our acceptance. The former is simpler,
and is supported by Tatian's Dia Tessaro?z ; the
latter is on the whole more probable, and has the
sanction of the Ammonian sections, (i) There
were two anointings, one of our Lord's head, the
other of His feet; the one in love, the other
in penitence; and S. John has confused the two.
(2) There was only one anointing, and S. John has

deliberately corrected, as well as supplemented, the
Synoptic account of it, which first appeared in S.
Mark's second edition, and therefore was not carried
westwards at first, but came, as far as it did come,
in a fragment afterwards. Here S. Luke has entirely
misplaced it, putting it far too early. He has like-
wise blended it with much new discourse. S.Luke
on the latter supposition has borrowed the name of
Simon from S. Mark, but the details of anointing
from S. John, misplacing the whole as usual.
5. The Charge to the Seventy (Luke x.
2-16).— Here one saying from S. Mark (Mark vi. 11
= Matt. X. 14) and some scraps are worked up with
ten Matthaean logia, of which one is put by S.
Matthew independently (Matt. xi. 20-24) the others ;
form part of the " Charge to the Twelve," which

itself is a great conflation. Only one scrap (Luke
X. 4^) is new, but there are four doublets, viz., Luke
X. 4*=ix. 3*; X. 5% 7* = ix. 4; x. io-ii=ix. 5 x. 16 ;
= ix. 48, and some editorial additions in x. 7-1 1.

Some critics have concluded that the Mission of
the Seventy Is therefore unhistorical, but It is
more scientific Matthew's "Charge

to insist on S.
to the Twelve" being a conflation. Doubtless S.
Luke had excellent authority for the appointment
of the Seventy, however uncertain he was left
about the limits of the Charges addressed to them
and to the Twelve,
6. Exultation and Congratulations (Luke
X. 21-24). —A conflation of three logia (Matt. xi.
25-26, 27 ; xiii. 16-17) which S. Matthew arranges

differently.
7. The Story of the Good Samaritan (Luke

X. 25-37). —A conflation of Lucan matter with frag-
ments borrowed from S. Mark. (Mark xii. 28-33.)
8. Prayer (Luke xi. 1-13). —
A conflation of two
Matthaean logia (Matt. vi. 9-13; vii. 7-1 1) with one
Lucan section. Matthew has put these logia into
S,
different chapters of the Sermon on the Mount,
but in doing so has broken the sequence of thought.
The editorial note with which S. Luke introduces
the section shows how S. Luke collected information
from all quarters. Apollos or any other of John
the Baptist's disciples may have furnished the in-
formation which it contains.
9. On
Casting out Demons (Luke xi. 14-28).
A we have fully unravelled already.
conflation which
10. This is an Evil Generation (Luke xi.
29-36). —
A conflation of five logia, and one Lucan
saying. One of the logia is a doublet occurring
also in S. Luke viii. 16, which is parallel to S. Mark
iv, 21. The first three logia cohere closely together,
and are found together, but in inverted order, in
CONFLATIONS 53
Matthew xii. 38-42. The next two have no real

connexion with what precedes, nor with each other
(Matt. V. 15; vi. 22-23). S. Luke's new logion (xi. 36)
coheres closely with what precedes, and welds the
whole collection into one speech.
11. Discourse at a Pharisee's Breakfast-
—
table (Luke xi. 37-53). This should be compared
with the discourse at the Pharisee's dinner-table.
(Luke xiv. 1-24.) S. Luke stands alone in telling
us that our Lord on three occasions accepted
hospitality from Pharisees. We may feel sure that
he had excellent authority for this, and yet doubt
whether the speeches which he connects with these
visits were always spoken on the occasion. The
machinery of the breakfast-table is not much used,
and S. Matthew gives the whole discourse in his
twenty-third chapter with a different setting and in
inverted order, with frequent diversity in wording.
12. An Address to the twelve in Presence
OF A Multitude, with two Apostrophes to the

Crowd (Luke xii. 1-59). —A conflation of twenty
sayings, of which six are peculiar to S. Luke,
fourteen are taken from S. Matthew's login, but two
of the latter have certain parallels with S. Mark.
S. Matthew has distributed the logia thus (i) Three :
in the Sermon on the Mount (2) six in the Charge

;
to the Twelve (3) three in the eschatological

;
discourse (4)
;
two in other chapters. S. Luke
binds the conflation together by six editorial notes,
five of which demand notice but none indicates
;
special information. There is no conclusion. Verses

35-51 appear to be an expansion of Mark xiii.
33-37, but from another eye-witness, and in another
translation.
13. The Miseries of the Lost (Luke xiii.
22-30). A — Lucan
conflation of three logia with a
scrap and a refrain. S. Matthew puts one of these
logia into the midst of the heahng of the centurion's
servant. (Matt. viii. ii.)
14. Jerusalem the City of Martyrdoms

(Luke xiii. 3I-35). —A conflation of a logion, which
occupies a more suitable position in S. Matthew, with
some new matter.
15. Discourses at the dinner-table of a
Pharisee (Luke xiv. 1-24). Three logia, including—
a parable, are welded with three new fragments.
16. We must give up all if we would
follow Christ (Luke xiv. 25-35). A conflation —
of two logia with some new matter.
17. Five disconnected Apophthegms (Luke
xvi. 13-18) —A conflation of four logia with one
new scrap. S. Matthew gives the logia in widely
different contexts, and each with an appropriate
setting.
18. Four disconnected Apophthegms (Luke
xvii. l-io). —Four two of which are found
logia,
in the Mark, are followed by a

second edition of S.
new section. The five sayings are worked up with

some editorial notes into four apophthegms.
19. Discourse about the last days (Luke
xvii. 20-37). —
^^^ Lord's sayings about the last days
were probably uttered on many different occasions
scattered over His ministry. He also spoke parables
on this subject. S. Matthew, after his usual manner,
CONFLATIONS 55
has massed the sayings into chapters xxiv., xxv.,

except that a few of them are inserted strangely into
the Sermon on the Mount and the Charge to the
Twelve. S. Luke has divided them into four
speeches. The first of these (Luke xii. 35-48) forms
part of a longer discourse. The other three are Luke

xiii. 22-30, xvii. 20-37, ^^^- 7-3^- The last of these
is taken from Mark xiii., the other three were either
/o£-za or doublets. S. Matthew's arrangement is much

more effective for reading aloud in church, S. Luke's
is better adapted for oral teaching. This discourse
consists of four new and five
scraps, three doublets,
/ogza welded together by three editorial notes into
nine sentences, three of which have parallels in
S. Mark.
20. The Coming of the Son of Man (Luke
xxi. 7-38). —This discourse has been already de-
scribed. Its basis is Marcan, but it has a few new
scraps.
VII.
ON THE PROPER NAMES IN

S. MARK'S GOSPEL
HITHERTO have assumed the truth of the

I
I have assumed, that is, that

oral hypothesis.
S. Matthew and S. Luke did not copy from S. Mark's
written Gospel, nor from any other Ur-Marcus, but
that they derived their knowledge of his teaching
from oral tradition.
Any other hypothesis so fetters the critic that it
does not leave him the necessary freedom to explain

the existing state of things in the synoptic Gospels.
In this and the next two papers I propose to bring
forward some arguments in defence of the oral
hypothesis. And in this paper I deal with the
proper names in S. Mark, comparing S. Mark's list
of them with the lists preserved in the parallel
passages of S. Matthew and S. Luke.
I have not reckoned as proper names God^ Lord^
Son of Marty Son of God^ or Holy Spirit. Neither
have I admitted Satan, the devil, or Beelzebub. The
name fesus occurs so frequently, and its repetition in
many passages is so much a matter of literary feeU
ing, that I have given the numbers first with, then
without it.
56
PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 57
I find that in S. Mark's Gospel eighty-six* proper

names occur, many of which are repeatedly given
until the sumamounts to 341. In the Marcan
total
sections of S.Matthew they amount to 270, and in
the Marcan sections of S. Luke to 175.
Excluding the nsLme /esuSy we find in S. Mark 261
proper names, in S. Matthew's parallel passages 194,
and in S. Luke's 128.
Further details are shown in the following tables
S. Mark. S. Matthew. S. Lukb.
Common to all three Gospels . . 105 ... 105 ... 105
Common to S. Mark and S. Matthew. Ill ... Ill ...
Common to S. Mark and S. Luke

In one Gospel only ... . 35
90
...
... 54
...
...
35
35
341 270 175

Omitting the name /esus
S. Mark. S. Matthew. S. Lukb.
Common to all three Gospels. . . 85 ... 85 ... 85
Common to S. Mark and S. Matthew. 82 ... 82 ...
Common to S. Mark and S. Luke . 21 ... ... 21

In one Gospel only . • • . 73 ... 27 ... 22
261 194 128
It must, however, be remembered that S. Matthew

omits five of S. Mark's sections containing in all
7 proper names, and S. Luke omits 14 sections

containing 36 proper names. The corrected pro-
portion, therefore, for S. Mark, 341
will be for ;
S. Matthew, 275 ; and

Luke, 196. for S.
It is evident, however, on examination that, as we
should have expected, the 54 names peculiar to
S. Matthew, and the 35 peculiar to S. Luke are,
* I reckon Jacob and Israel, Simon and Peter, Levi and Matthew,
James, John, and Boanerges as distinct names. I allow three Maries,
four Jameses, and two each of Joses and Judas.
except in one instance, editorial additions possessing
no claim to be considered part of the Petrine
Memoirs. We may deduct them all but one, and
the result will then be, S. Mark, 341 S. Matthew,
;
222 S. Luke, 162.

;
The first thing that strikes us on inspecting these

figuresis the large proportion of proper names (105
out of 341) which have resisted all the attrition of

years of catechizing, and all the changes of widely
diverging literary styles, and still keep their place
in three Gospels. Secondly, we notice that more
than double the number (216, ix.^ 105 + in) are
found in the two Gospels S. Mark and S. Matthew
but when we come to the other pair, S. Mark and S.
Luke, there is a great falling off. Only 140 (105 +
35) are common to these.
As with the proper names, so fared it with the
other words generally. The catechists of Jerusalem,
who were responsible for the safe keeping of the
Marcan portions of S. Matthew's Gospel, were, as
their oriental trainingand sympathies inclined them
to be, very jealous for the precise wording of the
narratives which they taught. They abbreviated
them, sometimes considerably but they did not
;
often change them. The Gentile catechists, inherit-

ing a Greek love of liberty, were not so closely tied
to their original. As long as the general sense was
retained, the words were altered with no little free-
dom. S. Luke supports S. Mark in only 35 cases
beyond those which are common to three evan-
gelists, and several of these are where S. Matthew
has omitted the section.

Lastly, in only one case —exclusive of "editorial

notes" —does Matthew support S. Luke against
S.
S. Mark. For in Mark 5 the word Jordan, accord-

i.
ing to the united testimony of S. Matthew and S.

Luke, ought to hkve been written twice instead of
once. In all other cases in which S. Matthew and S.
Luke agree S. Mark agrees with them. Even in
this case the meaning is not affected. Whether the
word should be given once or twice is a question of
literary propriety.
It is of course theoretically possible, if the docu-
mentary hypothesis be true, that S. Mark wrote later
than S. Matthew and S. Luke, and diligently in-
corporated into his work the whole of the proper
names which he found in them, adding many more
from external sources. But it seems to me very
much simpler and more probable to hold that S.
Mark gives us S. Peter's teaching in its fullest form,
the other Gospels in a curtailed form. The priority
of S. Mark is generally admitted by all classes of
critics, and the facts which we have just stated most
strongly confirm it*
Professors Sandayf and Marshall J have recently
been calling upon us to abandon the oral theory of
the origin of the Gospels, and to recur to the
hypothesis of written documents (which have un-
* In Matthew xxvi. 50-52 = Luke xxii. 48-51, the vioxd Jesus is
twice inserted on the united authority of S. Matthew and S. Luke only.

But the clauses in which it occurs, though they have Petrine words
embedded in them, are, both of them, "editorial notes." They have
no real resemblance with each other, nor is there anything correspond-
ing to them in S. Mark. They come from other sources.
t Expositor, vol. iii. p. 180. X Ibid., p. 17.
6o NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
accountably perished and left no trace behind) as
the foundation of the common matter in the synoptic
Gospels. Professor Sanday's reasons for urging this
are different from Professor Marshall's. Professor
Sanday holds fast to Mark, and
the unity of S.
accepts his Gospel as the historical framework of the
other two. He believes, as I do, that S. Matthew's
Logiuj or "utterances of the Lord," were unknown
to S. Mark, or, at least, not used by him.
Professor Marshall, on the other hand, requires us
to believe that S. Mark had before him, and de-
liberately rejected from his Gospel, the Lord's Prayer,
the Sermon on the Mount, the longer parables and
discourses. In fact, on Professor Marshall's showing,
S. Mark becomes a mere editor of other people's
work, and one who had so decided a preference for
what I had almost called the chaff to the wheat, that
the comparative neglect into which his Gospel has
fallen is excusable.
Professor Marshall also asks us to believe that
with Aramaean scribes writing was so uncertain an
art that one letter was constantly misread for
another. In a single line of three words he would
have us maintain that six were confused and
letters
one dropped altogether!* Now
I admit that the
square " Hebrew " characters in which Aramaic was

written in the time of our Lord, being without vowel
points and having no spaces between the words, did
often, in spite of final letters, lead to misreading.
But writing would have been of little use in trade
* Expositor^ vol. iii., p. 387.

PROPER NAMES IN S. MARK 6i
if had not been tolerably trustworthy.

it The
scribes knew which letters were liable to be mis-
taken, and shaped them with corresponding care. A
modern teacher has no difficulty in writing Hebrew
letters distinctly. It is one thing for mistakes to
have been made in deciphering a manuscript of the

Old Testament, which might be centuries old with
many letters frayed or rubbed away it is quite ;
another thing to blunder in reading a manuscript

which, according to Professor Marshall, can hardly
have been ten years old.
Moreover, if it be true — as it surely must be —that
S. Peter's Memoirs as well as S. Matthew's Logia
were originally composed in Aramaic, and continued
"
to circulate in that language amongst the " Hebrews
of the Church at Jerusalem if also both the ;
Memoirs and the Logia were translated into Greek

(as Professor Marshall allows the Logia to have
been), and freely circulated amongst the **
Hellenists,"
how can his linguistic test distinguish between them ?
The most that it can do is to discover the places
where the oral Greek of either the one or the
other has been revised through changes in the oral
Aramaic. And thus Professor Marshall's main
contention falls to the ground.
Professor Marshall himself is obliged at last to
admit* the fact of a Greek oral version existing side
by side with his supposed Aramaic documents. And
this amounts practically to a surrender of his posi-
tion, for the existence of such a version would
* Expositor^ vol. vL p. 93.

inevitably prevent the numerous corruptions and
mistakes which his theory requires. And if the
version was oral, why should not the original have
been oral also ? And why should not S. Peter's
Memoirs have been current in both languages, as
well as S. Matthew's Logia ? S. Peter spoke
Aramaic knowledge of at least literary Greek
: his
was small why did he use S. Mark or Silvanus
: else
to translate his words into Greek ? But if both
cycles existed in both languages, what becomes of
the linguistic test ?
Professor Stanton appears to agree with me in
holding that the documentary hypothesis entirely

fails to account for the multitude of minute dis-
crepancies in the identical portions of the synoptic
Gospels. Nothing but years of oral teaching can
have produced them. Oral teaching also alone can
account for the present state of the Logia. He has
done excellent service in insisting on these important
points. Nevertheless, certain minute resemblances
in language and in order seem to him to make it
probable that the authors of the first and third
Gospels had a copy of S. Mark before them when
they wrote, though pressure of local opinion in the
Churches for which they wrote prevented them
from using it except in unimportant details. This
assumes that two men treated an almost apostolic
document with equal timidity, and that S. Mark's
Gospel had a wider circulation in early times than
the loss of the last verses indicates. But our present
paper points to what I consider a more serious diffi-
culty.
If S. Matthew and S. Luke had had before them,

as Professor Stanton supposes, a written copy of S.
Mark's Gospel or of its prototype, is it credible that
they would have treated the proper names in it as
they have done ?
S. Luke, in his Gospel and

the Acts of the in
Apostles (as we shall show
next paper), writes
in the
as an historian. In his " editorial notes " he masses
proper names as an historian would. He knows the
importance of giving dates, places, and persons. Is
it conceivable that with S. Mark's 341 proper names
in front of him he should have omitted all but 175 }

Or he had only a mutilated copy of S. Mark, from
if
which passages containing 36 proper names were

absent, still the reduction of even 305 to 175 is im-
possible to account for, and, as we have seen, the
reduction really is to 140.
Grant, however, that S. Luke was a catechist, en-
gaged for many years in teaching "the facts con-
cerning Jesus"* to the Christians at Philippi, and
is it not certain that with ordinary prudence and
kindness he would avoid burdening the memory
of his pupils with obscure and unfamiliar foreign
names ? Such places as Jerusalem, Nazareth,
Capernaum such persons
; as S. Peter, Mary of
Magdala, Judas Iscariot, were essential to his
narrative, and must be learned : but Caesarea
Philippi, Magadan, Decapolis, Bartimaeus, Herod
Philip, and the Herodians, had either disappeared
from the oral teaching before S. Luke received it, or
* Acts xviii. 25,

slipped out of his lessons at an early date. When,
therefore, he came to write his Gospel, he did not
produce them, because he was no longer able to do
so, though, if I understand his aims aright, he would
have given almost anything for the recovery of just

such proper names as these.
Our belief in the oral theory is greatly strengthened
when we find that new investigations so decidedly
confirm it. It way,*
has enabled me, in the simplest
which had puzzled
to account for S. Luke's omissions,
me for twenty years it has forced upon me an easy
;
answer to the question about the day of the Cruci-

fixion! which was becoming a difficulty of the first
magnitude. And while supporters of the docu-
mentary hypothesis sooner or later speak of dis-
appointment, despair, and insoluble problems, those
who adopt the oral hypothesis are full of hope.
ProfessorSanday, for example, confesses J his
inability to account for the extraordinary dis-
crepancies which exist between S. Luke's preface
to the Sermon on the Mount and S. Matthew's
(Luke vi. 17-26 = Matt. v. 1-12), when compared
with the close resemblance between them in the
later sections of the same sermon. To me the ex-
planation is easy. S. Luke was a diligent collector
of evangelical facts and sayings. During his long
residence at Philippi, his wanderings over S. Paul's

churches, or his visit to Palestine, he received by
word of mouth or by letter — in Greek or Aramaic §
* See above, p. 3 ff. t See below, p. 179.
X Expositor^ vol. iii. p. 31 1 ff.
§ This will account for some of the traces of translation which

Professor Marshall observes^
—not merely the important contributions which

make up the third cycle, but an abundance of
words or works of Christ collected by many private
Christians.
Some of these were parts of the second cycle,
which was being slowly compiled at Jerusalem
more were sent by independent witnesses. Most of
them reached S. Luke without note of time or place.
He found room for them in his oral lessons one by
one as they came, to the best of his ability. Often
he arranged them according to subject-matter rather
than by their true chronology. The present state
of his Gospel confirms what I say. Only thus can
we account for the many boulders in it, deposited in
places which are certainly not their own.
Now some of these private contributions S. Luke
actually preferred to S. Peter's Memoirs. In chapters
xxii. and xxiii. he has substituted several of them
for S. Peter's records. What more natural than that
one of the spectators should have furnished him with
an independent account of the opening words of the
Sermon on the Mount } His edition of these open-
ing words, besides showing signs of literary polish,
differs from S. Matthew's account, as S. John's
feeding of the five thousand, or S. John's and S.
Luke's version of S. Peter's denials differs from
S. Mark's. There are some additions and much
change, but the same scene is plainly described. It
is possible, of course, that S. Luke never received

S. Matthew v. 1-12 : it is more probable that he
set it aside in favour of his private information.
The argument from the order of the narratives in
F
the three Gospels, which Mr. F. H. Woods* has
v/orked out in detail, so far from being fatal to the
oral hypothesis, as Professor Stanton and many
others suppose, appears to me to be a strong support
of it. For experience shows that if you are to learn
by heart a large quantity of loosely connected matter
with a view to daily repetition, you must be as care-
ful in preserving the order as in preserving the words.
You must even resort to artificial means to assist you

in doing this. For memory is so constituted that
a variation in order would lead to the loss of matter.
Every system of mnemonics is based on association
and order. The catechists could only perform their
duty by dividing their subject into lessons, and
taking each lesson in its proper sequence.! The
addition from time to time of new matter would not
disturb the order of the old sections. A few minor
changes would be made, as they have been, in the
several Churches on first starting, for each consider-
able Church must have had its own oral Gospel but ;
when once the order was fixed in any Church, it

would remain.
Lastly, the contention that the first cycle, if pub-
lished in Jerusalem, must have contained a Judaean
ministry ,t does not appear to me decisive. In the
first place more than a third — three-eighths — of
S. Mark's Gospel is taken up with events which
happened and discourses which were delivered in
* Studia BiblUa, series il. pp. 59-104. For further development of

this subject see my Synopsis of the Gospels, Preface xi.-xiii.
t See above, p. 14.

X- Expositor, vol. iii. p. 187.
Jerusakm. Several of these, I maintain, though
placed in Holy Week by S. Mark, belong really

to the earlier years of our Lord's ministry."^ And
if, becomes increasingly probable, a Johannine
as
course of oral teaching was extant in comparatively
early times, it is not strange that, as S. John dealt
chiefly with the Judaean ministry, S. Peter should
have refused to intrude into his brother Apostle's
domain. They may have agreed at the outset to
divide the work thus between them.
" Mr. Wright," Professor Sanday writes,! " knows
the ins and outs of his friends the catechists' pro-

ceedings more intimately than most of us." I admit
that I have collected time and put
for the first
together the obscure hints scattered over the New

Testament, which indicate the existence and work
of a noble band of men who have been hitherto
strangely neglected, but to whom the Church is under
infinite obligation. And in filling up the picture I
have no doubt made some use of the historical

imagination, as every one must do who would
present a vivid picture of bygone ages and to ;
a certain extent at least I have been successful.

The existence of the catechists is no longer denied.
An effort is sometimes made to belittle them and
minimise their work. Not so did the learned author
of the Clementine homilies estimate them when he
called the catechist of the Apostolic age the officer
in command at the prow of the ecclesiastical ship.
That was a post of dignity and responsibility second
* See Synopsis of the Gospets^ Preface xi.
t Expositor^ vol. iii. p. 83.

6S NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
only to the position of the Bishop in the poop.
And the catechists, if I mistake not, are regaining
it. We
have seen how Professor Marshall flies for
refuge to them from a serious difficulty. Even
Professor Sanday is forced to admit* that the
catechists lived and laboured in all parts of the
Christian world. The contention between us is re-
duced to this, whether they taught (as Apollos, who

was one of them, taught) "the facts concerning
Jesus," t which facts alone their pupils would be
willing to learn, or only moral precepts and " the two
ways," which belong, I contend, to the less earnest
times of the second century, when the Gospels were
a written possession. Theophilus, at any rate, had
been catechized in the very facts about which S.
Luke wrote in his Gospel.
But, to return to the proper names, the first cycle
speaks of the exercise of miraculous power on
twenty-eight Four times it tells us
occasions.
generally that many were healed, twice definite
—
numbers-ir-5000 and 4000 were fed. Eight miracles
concerned our Lord Himself The recipients of the
remaining fourteen were individuals. Now it is very
remarkable that only one of these individuals is
—
mentioned by name Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus
— and that by S. Mark only. S. Peter's mother-in-
law and Jairus's daughter are designated by the

name of a relative. Eleven are anonymous.
If S. Peter had been writing history for the re-
futation of adversaries, he would have taken pains
* Expositor^ vol. iii. p. 84.
t Acts xviii. 25. + Luke i. 4.

to discover (ifhe had forgotten or never known)

the names of these eleven persons, and he would
have appealed to them as witnesses in his support.
But S. Peter was teaching Christians who accepted
his testimony. They wanted information, not proof.
They were little disposed to burden their memory
with proper names of persons whom they did not
know. They expected the end of the dispensation
very shortly, and knew nothing of the claims of
posterity.
On the other hand, S. Peter's knowledge of places
might be expected to be fuller. And we find that
he fixes the locality of fourteen miracles. Four
others are said to have been wrought " in the desert,"
"in a desert spot," "on a lofty mountain," or at its
foot. The remaining ten have no local clue.

Seven Old Testament saints are mentioned
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Israel, Moses, David,
Elijah, Isaiah. S. Mark adds Abiathar, and S.
Matthew Jeremiah and Daniel, in what are probably
"editorial notes." It is noteworthy that the seven
are mentioned in all the three Gospels. The
common idea that Gentile Christians took little
interest in the Old Testament is not supported.
S.Luke's quotations from the Old Testament in the

Acts of the Apostles completely refute it.
The nameof Jesus is mentioned 80 times in
S. Mark, John the Baptist 16 times, the Boanerges
and Pilate 10 times, Peter and Herod (Antipas)
8 times. So truly is the first cycle described as
" the facts concerning Jesus." *
* Acts xviii. 25.
yo NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
Something is told concerning nine faithful men
of that age, John the Baptist, Simon Peter, the sons
of Zebedee, Matthew (if indeed he is identical with
Levi, which more than doubtful), Jairus, Bartimseus,
is
Joseph of Arimathaea, Simon the Cyrenian and of ;
three holy women, the Virgin Mary,* Mary of Mag-

dala, Salome. Then come four unbelieving men
Herod, Pilate, Barabbas, Judas Iscariot, and one
unbelieving woman, Herodias.
Very little is recorded of the above persons. If
it were not for the dramatic vividness of S. John's
Gospel, we should be singularly in the dark about
the Apostles and leaders of the Church. Except
in the one tragic scene of the Baptist's murder, our
Lord is the central figure in every section of the
first cycle. Other characters are entirely subordinate
to Him.
Names and nothing more are given of twenty-
three other persons, of whom seven were Apostles
and four "brethren of the Lord." The rest are
Alphaeus, Zebedee, James the Little and his brother
Joses, Simon the leper, Timaeus, Alexander and
Rufus (these two I regard as an editorial addition
of S. Mark's), Mary (who is once described as the
mother of James the Little and Joses, on another
as the mother of Joses, and on a third as the
mother of James), (Tiberius) Caesar, Herod Philip
(in Caesarea Philippi), and apparently another Herod
Philip in the narrative of the Baptist's murder.
* Nothing more is said of her than that our Lord spoke slightingly
of earthly relationships. It is only S. John who tells us that she was
present at the crucifixion.
Geographical details are scanty. Five countries

are mentioned — Judaea, Galilee, Gennesaret, Beyond
Jordan, and Decapolis. Eleven cities or villages
Jerusalem, Capernaum, Nazareth, Bethsaida, Caesarea
Philippi, Jericho, Bethphage, Bethany, Magadan,
Tyre and Sidon. I might have given Dalmanutha
instead of Magadan, but, as Professor Rendel Harris
has shown,* it is probably a "primitive error," in
which S. Matthew has preserved the true Petrine
word. If, have long suspected, Bethphage and
as I
Bethany are two names of the same village, all

difficulty about them disappears. Captain Conder
does not admit the existence of two Bethsaidas on
the shore of the same lake. And such a thing is
hardly credible in itself Either, therefore, S. Lukef
has unwittingly transposed the name from the end
of the narrative to the beginning, or some private
informant has told him the locality of the feeding
—
of the four thousand for which Bethsaida is
singularly well suited —and he, knowing nothing
of that event, has transferred the word to the feeding
of the five thousand. S. Mark J only knows of a
"desert spot" as the scene of the miracle, and S»
John's narrative does not at all suit the north end
of the lake. It is true that S. John in another place §
* On the Codsx Beza^ p. 178. f Luke ix. 10. Cf. Mark vi. 45.
X Harmonists require us men, women, and
to believe that 5,000
children crossed the Jordan at a place where no ford nor bridge
existed, in the month of April when the river would be in flood. It
is to be remarked that "the city Bethsaida" is clearly a late addition
to S. Luke's narrative, for in the sequel the disciples propose to send

the people for food, not to the city, but to the villages and homesteads
round about them.
{ xii. 2i»
^2 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
speaks of a " Bethsaida in Galilee," whereas the only
Bethsaida of which we know was on the east shore
of the Jordan, and therefore just out of Galilee in
Gaulanitis. But S. Luke has once interchanged
Gaulanitis* with Galilee, and it may well be that
the word Galilee had a wider application in addition
to its strict geographical use.
S. Mark
tells us that Nazareth was in Galilee,!
S. Matthew that Capernaum was by the sea-side, J

and S. Luke that Tyre was on the shores of the
Mediterranean, § and that Capernaum was a city
in Galilee. But all these additions seem to be
II
"editorial notes." Knowledge on the part of the

readeris generally assumed.
Five other places are mentioned the river Jordan, —

the Sea of Galilee, the Mount of Olives, the Garden
of Gethsemane, Golgotha. S. Luke omits Geth-
semane, and translates Golgotha "a skull."ir So
he translates Cananaean "Zealot."** To prevent
mistake he calls the Sea of Galilee the Lake of
Gennesaret. He "two disciples" (Mark
defines the
xi. I = Matt. xxi. i) to be Peter and John. He de-
scribesJohn as " the son of Zechariah." (iii. 2.) For
Thaddaeus he puts "Judas the (son) of James."
(Luke vi. i6; cf. Acts i. 13, John xiv. 22.) He adds
Joanna (xxiv. 10) to the list of women who visited
the sepulchre.
Again, twelve adjectivq^ derived from proper
names are found — Jews, Pharisees, Sadducees,
Galilseans, Jerusalemites, Herodians, Gerasenes,
• Acts V. 37. t i. 9- + iv. 13. § iv. 17.
II
iv. 31. 1 xxiii. 33. ** vi. 15.
Idumaeans, Nazarene, Cyrenian, Greek, Syrophoe-

nician. S. Matthew, at least in the present text,
changes Gerasenes into Gadarenes.
Finally, we may observe that of the eighty-six
proper names which occur in the first cycle, the
following twenty-five are absent from S. Luke's
parallels : Abiathar, Thaddaeus, Boanerges, the
names of the four brethren of the Lord, James
the Little, Joses, Bartimseus, Timaeus, Alexander,
Rufus, Salome, both the Herods Philip (if indeed
there were two), the Herodians, Jerusalemites, Greek
woman, Syrophoenician, Gennesaret, Beyond Jor-
dan, Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi, Magadan. These
names, I submit, are exactly the kind of names
which we should expect to be riddled out of the
tradition in forty years of catechetical teaching
amongst persons who were not resident in Palestine.
But if we look at the proper names in the non-
Petrine portions of S. Luke's Gospel, or at the
remarkably rich array of famous and obscure
persons and places mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles, they will be seen to be just the kind of
names which S. Luke would have wished to record
in a written Gospel.
VIII.
ON THE PROPER NAMES IN

S. LUKE'S WRITINGS
OF the three synoptists, the second writes as a

catechist, the first as a theologian, the third
as an historian. S. Mark's aim
is to record what he
had been daily teaching, as nearly as possible in the

form in which he had learned it from S. Peter. The
writer of the Gospel "according to S. Matthew"
gives us the same record as S. Mark, with large
additions,which tend to explain and justify the ways
of God men, especially in the mystery of the
to
Incarnation, the Messiahship, and the teaching of
Jesus. S. Luke desires to connect his Divine reve-
lation with the ordinary course of this world; to
show that the record was true and would bear
scrutiny ; to satisfy the demands of the intellect as
well as the cravings of the heart.
It is of S. Luke's right to be considered an
historian that we propose to treat in this paper.
Not only is he seen to be such by the care with
which he prefixes to his sections an introductory
sketch to describe the historical situation, or con-
cludes them with a few remarks to point out the
historical result, though these "editorial notes." of
74
PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE 75
his form quite a feature of his Gospel ; but he essays

to arrange the narratives in chronological order, and
inserts a number of dates. He is also at pains to
substantiate the record with the names of the persons
who are described, and of the places where the
events happened.
I. Let us glance first at his dates. It was not
till the sixth century of our era that the convenient
practice of naming the year by its numerical distance
from the birth of Christ was first invented. Before
that period there was no system of chronology uni-
versally accepted, but every nation had a method of
its own. The Greeks reckoned by Olympiads the ;
Latins, from the building of Rome ; the Syrians,

from the victory of Seleucus Nicator while many ;
citieshad one, and sometimes two or three epochs

of their own. Not only is it necessary to discover
and distinguish between all these, but we must find
whether the year was solar or lunar, or a mixture of
both, and whether it began in January or March, or
atany other season. Indeed, the facts are so obscure
and complex that precision in dates is often unattain-
able.
In the time of Christ, however, even these reforms
had not been generally adopted. The vulgar did not
reckon the years numerically, but by the names of
their annual magistrates —
by the archon of Athens,
the ephor at Sparta, the consuls at Rome, the high
priest at Jerusalem ; while for cosmopolitan purposes,
emperors, kings, proconsuls, and propraetors were
freely made use of.
S. Luke, therefore, is giving dates after the common

ye NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
practice of his time, when he states that John
the Baptist was born "in the days of Herod the
king of Judsea " ; that Christ's birth took place
" when Quirinius was propraetor of Syria " ; that
His ministry began "in the fifteenth year of the
Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was procu-
rator of Judaea, and Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his
brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis,
Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood
of Annas or Caiaphas " ; that S. James was martyred
under Herod Agrippa I. ; that a famine took place
in the time of Claudius and that various parts of
;
S. Paul's history fell under the proconsulship of

Gallio, or the procuratorship of Felix or Festus.
These, as well as the name of Ananias the high
priest, are so many dates, and would be reckoned
as such by the readers of the day. Compared with
the other New Testament writers, who seldom give
a date at all, S. Luke is seen to be the true historian.
We could wish that he had told us more clearly
whether our Lord's ministry lasted one year, as he
seems to have held,* or several what was the date ;
of S. Paul's birth, the duration of his first missionary

journey, and one or two other details. But speaking
generally, S. Luke gives us very important help
towards determining the chronology ; the other New
Testament writers seldom do so.
n. With respect to the arrangement of the narra-
tives in the true chronological order, we must
distinguish between those periods, like S. Paul's
* See below, page 185.

PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE j'j
journeys, in which S. Luke accompanied the apostle

or obtained information directly* from him, and
those other periods, especially our Lord's ministry,
where he depended upon second-hand information.
In the former case, his arrangement, as far as we
can test it, is perfect ; in the latter case, I am con-
vinced that it is not so. The Gospel begins, indeed,
and ends with the true sequence, just so far as the
events narrated indicate their own order ; in other
parts S. Luke simply follows S. Mark, whose order
Papias rightly declares to have been made for the
convenience of teaching, and not as the facts
occurred. In the unique section, chs. ix. 51-xviii.
14, where S. Luke has no one to guide him, the
sections are massed no discovered
together on
principle. In the first half of the Acts of the
Apostles there appears also to be some misplace-
ment. Not only does ch. xi. 19 ff. resume the
history left off at ch. viii. i, but the Acts of the
Seven (chs. vi.-viii.) are grouped together for unity
of subject, it would seem, rather than proximity of
events. At any rate, the conversion of the Ethiopian
eunuch (chs. viii. 26 ff.) must have happened sub-
sequently to the conversion of Cornelius (chs.
X., xi.), for the religious status of the two men was
exactly the same,t and the fact is repeatedly em-
phasized that Cornelius was the first Gentile to
receive baptism.
Partly, therefore, for artistic reasons, but oftener, I
* That he did this for the first journey is shown by Professor Ramsay,
The Church in the Roman Empire,
t The eunuch cannot have been a full proselyte (Deut. xxiii. l).
7^ NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
think, from inability to recover the true order, S.
Luke's arrangement is defective. We have no
reason to think that inspiration was a guide in
matters chronological. Many incidents reached him
without any clue to the time of their occurrence.
His authorities also were not, like himself, Gentiles
Greek students of Herodotus and Thucydides*
but Orientals to whom "in those days" or "after
these things" were satisfactory connecting links.
S. Luke had seldom the means of testing their
arrangement, even if it were desirable to raise doubts
by disturbing the stereotyped order of catechetical
teaching.
S. Luke promised, in his preface, to write "in
order," and it is simplest to suppose that he meant
"in chronological order," as his historical instinct
would direct. But harmonists have been too ready
to assume that he succeeded in accomplishing his
purpose. Recent investigations make it daily more
clear that he did not. His Gospel is by far the least
orderly of the three. He had not the opportunities
to recover the true sequence of events, and it is most
important to admit this.f
HL In examining S. Luke's list of proper names,
I set aside those which belong to ancient days,
whether obtained from the Old Testament or from
family genealogies, and consider only the names of
contemporary persons, of which fifty are introduced
to us in the Gospel, and ninety-five in the Acts of
* Many coincidences of expression indicate S. Luke's acquaintance

with these authors.
t See above, page 40 ft.
the Apostles. Eighteen out of the fifty are not

mentioned by the other synoptists; sixty-two out
of the ninety-five are not mentioned by any other
New Testament writer.
A religious teacher speaks but seldom of those
whom the world considers great. To him S. Paul
is a more important person than Tiberius, Dorcas
than Drusilla. But the historian is obliged to take

note of temporal rulers, and accordingly a large
number of unbelievers find a place in S. Luke's
chronicles. He names four Caesars Augustus, —
Tiberius, Claudius, and Nero * five Herods Herod ; —
the Great, Antipas, Philip, Agrippa I., and Agrippa
n. three royal ladies, Candace, Berenice, and
;
Drusilla ; seven Roman governors — Quirinius, Gallio,

Pilate, Felix, Festus, Sergius Paulus, and Publius
three officers of the army — Lysias, and
Julius,
Cornelius ; three high priests — Annas, Caiaphas, and
Ananias. Besides these, we have Lysanias the
tetrarch, Chuzas
house steward of Antipas,
the
Blastus the keeper of Agrippa's harem, Gamaliel
the doctor of the Law, Tertullus the advocate,
Demetrius the coppersmith, Theudas the Zealot, and
Elymas the sorcerer.
Some of these are mentioned cursorily to fix a
date or brighten a page. Some play no mean part
in the drama. But there is a singular
sacred
historical calmness in dealing with them. There is
no raking up the foul deeds of their past lives, none
of the sensational stories about Tiberius or Berenice,
* He calls Nero simply Caesar. Caius is the only emperor of
the time that he omits.
in which the modern commentator delights. Full
justice is done to the political fairness of Gallio, and
the honest purpose of Festus. No censure is pro-
nounced on the weakness of Pilate or the meanness
of Felix. The facts are stated, and the reader is left
to draw what conclusions he pleases. Thucydides
himself is not more impartial. "Those that are
without God judgeth."
Far more interesting to us are the names of the
faithful whom S. Luke enumerates. " Not many rich,
not many noble, are called." Of that class, however,

are Sergius Paulus, Barnabas, Dionysius, Theophilus,
and Joanna. " But the weak things of this world
hath God chosen to confound the mighty." Many
who were honourable in the Church were unknown
outside of it. It is in dealing with them that S.
Luke writes with the hopefulness which is so pain-
fully absent from the pages of contemporary heathen
authors. How much poorer should we be without
his pictures of Zachariasand Elizabeth, Simeon and
Anna, Martha and Mary, Zacchseus, Cleopas, S.
Matthias, S. Stephen and S. Philip, Cornelius,
Dorcas, Lydia, Rhoda! What tragedies centre
round the names of Simon Magus or of Ananias
and Sapphira! How frequently, too, S. Luke fills
in the gaps left by S. Paul How little should we
!
know about Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, Timothy,

Barnabas, and Silas, if we depended upon the great
apostle only
The names in the Gospel are as follows. An
asterisk is prefixed to names not mentioned by
S. Mark or S. Matthew:—
PROPER NAMES IN S. LUKE 8i
A. Unbelievers.
(a) Men. Pontius Pilate
*Augustus Ceesar Annas

*Tiberius Coesar Caiaphas
Herod the Great *Simon the Pharisee
Herod Antipas Barabbas
Herod Philip Chuzas
Lysanias {b) Women.
Quirinius Herodias
B. Believers.
(a) Men. Alphaeus

Jesus Christ Levi
Apostles — Jairus
•Zacchseus
Simon Peter
Simon the Cyrenian
Andrew
Joseph of Arimathaâ
James
*Cleopas
John
Philip After Christ—
Bartholomew
Theophilus
Matthew
Thomas {J>) Women.
James the son of Alphaeus
Before Christ—
Simon the Zealot
*Judas the son of James Mary the mother of Jesus
Judas Iscariot Elisabeth
Before Christ — Anna

Zacharias During the Ministry —
•Simeon
Mary the mother of James
•Phanuel
Mary of Magdala
Joseph
*Mary the sister of Lazarus
John the Baptist
Martha
During the Ministry — Joanna
Zebedee *Susanna
The names in the Acts of the Apostles are as

follows. An asterisk is prefixed to those who are
not mentioned by other sacred writers :
G
A. Unbelievers.
(a) Men. *Julius

*Blastus
*Claudius Caesar
*Bar-Jesus
*(Nero) Ccesar
*Dionysius
Herod Antipas *Alexander
*Herod Agrippa I.
*Demetrius
*nerod Agrippa II.
*Scevas
*Gallio
*Elymas
Pontius Pilate
*Judas of Galilee
*Felix
Theudas
*Festus
*Ananias, high priest (b) Women.
*AIexander, chief priest Candace
*John, chief priest * Berenice
*GamaHel *Drusilla
*Claudius Lysias
B. Believers.
{a) Men. Church workers of various

grades—
Jesus Christ James the Lord's brother
77ie Twelve Apostles — Apollos
Silas
Simon Peter Timothy
John John Mark
James Sosthenes
Andrew *Agabus (prophet)
Philip *Joseph Barsabas
Thomas *Judas Barsabas
Bartholomew Lucius
Matthew *Symeon Niger
James son of Alphreus *Manaen
Simon the Zealot Aquila
Judas son of James Delegates of the Churches —
Matthias
*Sopater
Aristarchus
Apostles — *Secundus
*Gaius of Derbe
Paul (Saul) Tychicus
Barnabas Trophimus
The Seven— *Gaius of Macedonia

*Tyrannus
•Stephen (prophet)
* Philip (evangelist) *Titius Justus
Crispus
*Prochorus
Nicanor Jason
*Eutychus
*Timon
Erastus
*Parmenas
Alphseus
*Nicolaus
*Pyrrhus
Connected with S. Feter- •Theophilus
*^neas
•Simon the tanner
{b) Women.
•Cornelius
*Ananias Mary the mother of Jesus
•Simon Magus •Mary the mother of S. Mark

*TaLitha (Dorcas)
Connected with S. Paul—
•Rhoda
*Ananias of Damascus Lydia
*Judas of Damascus •Damaris
*Sergius Paulus Priscilla (Prisca)
*Mnason •Sapphira
Still more remarkable is the geographical know-

ledge exhibited by S. Luke. From Babylon in the
east to Rome from Bithynia in the north
in the west,
to Ethiopia in the south, he takes us at pleasure.
In the Acts of the Apostles alone he mentions
thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine of
the Mediterranean islands. At a time when there
were no maps deserving the name, no systematic
geography except Strabo's, which is incomplete,
few books of travel or of reference, he takes us over
no inconsiderable part of the inhabited world. We
need not suppose that he had anything beyond a
vague idea of the situation of Parthia, Persia, or
the Soudan. He probably would not have set Ur
of the Chaldees where modern geographers have
discovered it ; but his knowledge of the places which
he describes is correct and minute. The more his
statements are tested, the more their accuracy is
seen.
Mr. Smith, of Jordanhill, spent years in inves-
tigating the shipwreck. Subsequent workers have
followed on his lines, with the result that S. Luke's
account is seen to be as true as it is graphic.
Professor Ramsay has devoted a large part of his
active life to the study of Asia Minor. He corrects
the German commentators, and finds mistakes even
in Bishop Lightfoot, but not in S. Luke.
In the Gospel the sweep is, of course, much more
confined. Our Lord's work was carried on within
the province of Syi'ia, and, except the incidental
mention of Cyrene as the home of Simon, no place
outside of Syriais alluded to. S. Luke adds from
his own —Abilene,
researches three countries Ituraea,
—and four places —Sarepta, Nain, Em-
Trachonitis
maus, Siloam — which are not the other synoptists. in
But his authorities had cared little for geography.
Seven cities in Galilee and nine in Judaea are all
that he could collect. At the time when he wrote
it was not easy to recover the neglected facts. The
poverty of the Gospel in topography is as remark-
able as the wealth of the Acts of the Apostles.
The following is the list of places mentioned in S.
Luke's Gospel. An asterisk is prefixed to the names
of places which are not mentioned by the other
synoptists. Adjectives are given only when the
corresponding noun does not occur:
A. Names of Countries.
Cilicia
•Lydda
*Joppa
*Ca;sarea
Ptolemais
*Antipatris
Sychexii
Nazareth
his own knowledge to increase the stock upon every
available opportunity.
How, then, has he treated S. Mark? S. Mark (as we
saw in the last paper) gives eighty-six proper names
of persons and places —a miserably small number
indeed, but S. Luke reduces by omitting twenty-
it
five of them. Had he copy

possessed a written
of S. Mark, I cannot but think that he would
carefully have made full use of every one of them.
But in oral tradition amongst Gentiles, who were
unfamiliar with the localities or the people, proper
names would
inevitably disappear. Important
places, like Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, would
remain ; but Bartimaeus, Salome, Decapolis, Magadan,
Caesarea Philippi, would One by one be left out. In
a written book these names would be both useful
and ornamental; when the lesson was learned by
heart, they would needlessly cumber the memory.
We notice next the evidential value of proper
names, especially in the Acts of the Apostles. We
consider them the strongest proof of the authenticity
of the book. A man who would venture to intro-
duce ninety-five persons and a hundred and three
places into a history of his own times must have been
pretty sure of his ground. The majority of those
persons were still living when he wrote into every
;
one of these places his volume shortly penetrated.

If the story was not substantially true, could it
possibly have survived? If he had misrepresented
a single person or misplaced a single village, would
not the whole neighbourhood have denounced him?
The magnitude of the interests at stake, the eternal
value of the doctrines proclaimed, would have made

men insist upon a scrupulous adherence to the truth.
To him it might with good reason have been said
" Incedis per ignes

Suppositos cineri doloso."
(HoR., OdeSy ii., i, 7.)
The only wayto deal successfully with geography

is to and either S. Luke himself or his
travel,
informants had visited the places and been present
at the scenes which are described. The correctness
of his geography upholds the truth of his history.
The Gospel, as we have seen, has but little of this
external confirmation. God's ways are not as our
ways. The less important work of the apostles is
abundantly attested, the infinitely more important
work of the Master stands alone.
It might easily have been otherwise. If only S.
Luke had been one of the Twelve, and had accom-
panied them as their chronicler, in what a different
way would the Gospel have been written We !
should not have been left in doubt whether the

ministry lasted one year, two, three, or as many as
ten. Our Lord's journeys would have been as
clearly defined as S. Paul's. Every incident would
have been set in its proper surroundings. The
miracles would have been confirmed by the name
and abode of the recipient the parables would have
;
been illustrated by their geographical surroundings.

The gain to the student would have been enormous;
to the faith of the Church, perhaps very little.
Our Lord's words speak to the heart and the
conscience.It is not well that our attention should
be drawn from them by the picturesqueness of the
scenery. Have we ears to hear? Then it matters
little to us who first received the message, or in what
place or at what time it first was spoken. The words
are for us.
IX.
ON ORAL TEACHING
WE propose
some of the
in this paper to attempt to remove
objections which many men feel
to the oral hypothesis, objections which, we believe,
arise chiefly from the imagination, through the
difficulty which all men feel in picturing a state of
things which Js widely different from anything
existing now. The objections to the use of docu-
ments appear to me to be much more serious.
When a man copies from a written document, he
may easily omit words or verses through carelessness
or design. He may easily add an occasional comment
of his own, or a few verses from another source. He
may correct the grammar, polish the style, and
remove barbarisms. But he cannot readily invert
the order, still less can he habitually change from
thirty to forty per cent of the words, where he gains
nothing by doing so, but rather blunts the sharpness
of the original narrative. This last, as a literary
feat, we may fairly pronounce to be impossible. It
would require an almost infinite effort. And for
what conceivable purpose should that effort have
been made? To give a semblance of originality? But
by these multitudinous variations the author irritates
91
those who are familiar with the original document,
and wastes his labour on those who are not. That
one evangelist should have been guilty of this petty
conceit is a shock to our moral sense. That two
men, working independently in different parts of the
world, should have hit on the same preposterous
expedient for magnifying their task and diminishing
its credit, is surely inconceivable. But with the oral
hypothesis this stupendous difficulty disappears.
The very changes which one man, copying direct
from a document, could not have sufficient versatility
to make, are made naturally and unconsciously by
an army of catechists during thirty or forty years
of oral tradition. This Is the chief argument for
the oral hypothesis, and the upholders of the
documentary hypothesis are, as a rule, very reluctant
to face it.
It is often assumed that S. Luke asserts in the

preface to his Gospel that he had read and was
making use of those narratives which "many" of
his contemporaries had "undertaken to draw up."
It seems to me that his language, when carefully
examined, decidedly favours the opposite conclusion.
He asserts that both they and he derived their
information through tradition handed down by the
regular catechists from the original eye-witnesses.
He does not affirm that his precursors had actually
published anything, but rather implies that they
undertook the task of writing, and abandoned it. If,
however, they did publish Gospels, his own was
intended to supersede theirs, not so much by its
greater comprehensiveness, as by its stricter accuracy
ON QEAL TEACHING 93
—a resultwhich he could not have attained if he

had copied from them.
Again, it is often tacitly assumed that the twelve
apostles were all engaged in narrating their re-
collections of the words and deeds of Christ. But
this cannot have been done officially to any great
extent, or a diversity of tradition would have arisen
instead of the one stereotyped record which we
possess. S. Peter is the only member of the Twelve
who is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles to have
originated anything. The activity of S. John we
gather from his own writings, that of S. Matthew from
tradition. And these three are the only eye-witnesses
who are said to have produced Gospel history. A
number of anonymous authors, some of whom may
have been apostles, contributed chapters or verses in
S. Matthew and S. Luke, notably the great section
Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14; but the other members of the
Twelve have left no known record.
Again, it is essential to distinguish sharply between
S. Peter the preacher and S. Peter the teacher. In
the former capacity he dealt with the fulfilment of
prophecy, exhorted his converts to live up to their
high calling, or reproved them for their failings ; in
the latter it has long been my contention that he
made them commit to memory a Gospel section,
repeat it every day, with the addition of new
sections, until a considerable body of teaching was
acquired, which was frequently recited, and always in
the same order, until the order became as much fixed
as the subject-matter.
In assuming this, I only assume that S. Peter was
wise in his generation, and acted as everyone in
his circumstances and in that time and place must
have acted. He had several thousands of converts
to educate, who were all ignorant, and many of them
eager to learn. Preaching would not satisfy them
nor supply their need. The fashion of the day was
to store the memory. There was an unreasoning
prejudice against religious books. " Commit nothing
to writing "was a maxim with the Rabbis. Neither
S. Peter nor his fellows had any literary instincts.
Believing that the end of the age was at hand, they
had no sense of duty to posterity.
In the unchanging East the habit of committing to
memory is still strong, and it may confirm what I
have written if I produce some examples from
ancient and modern times in illustration of the
practice.
The first quotation is taken from A Buddhist
Catechism^ published by Messrs. Redway, in London,
1890.
"151. Were these holy books composed and written
by the Buddha himself?
" Neither by him nor by any of the brethren who
were the Buddha's first disciples. It was not the
custom in India in those times to set in writing any
religious or philosophic truths. They were taught
by word of mouth from master to pupil, and im-
pressed on the memory by incessant repetition of
words and whole passages. In this way they were
handed down from one generation to another."
The next quotation is from Professor Max Muller,
in the Christian Commonwealth for October 4th,
ON ORAL TEACHING 95
1894. It was kindly furnished to me by the Rev.

Joseph Twidale.
" At a time when writing did not exist the human
memory was infinitely superior to what it is now.

People could remember an enormous amount of
what we call poetry, and even prose nay, they ;
could compose without any writing materials. This

is very difficult for us to believe, but we have in
Sanskrit literature an accurate description of how a
man who was being educated had to learn every day
so many lines, and how he learned them and
repeated them, going on day after day, always
repeating what he had learned, and adding to it.
That system is described in books of the fourth

century B.C. I have had people in this room who
knew by heart the whole of the Rig- Veda, which
consists of more than a thousand hymns of about ten
lines each, and who could take it up at any point.
That is not an uncommon thing among
at all
educated men but women are not usually

in India,
educated up to the point. I have had, however,
staying here a lady, Ramabhai, who had committed
to memory pretty well what would correspond in
extent to our Bible. Her father, evidently an
enlightened man, had allowed her to be present at
the lessons of her brother, and in that way she
learned all that he learned. When she was staying
with us asked some of my friends, professors in the
I
university, who are always somewhat sceptical about

this faculty of memory, to come and young
test this
lady, who was only twenty-two. I gave them the
Rig- Veda, the Bhagavad-geta, and other books,
them they might open them where they liked,
telling
and she would go on till they were tired. And so
she did, never hesitating for a word."
The third witness is the Ven. Archdeacon Moule,
of Mid-China, who said, at a public meeting in
Chelmsford, that there is a school at Ning-po to
which orphans are taken when twelve years old and
taught. He was asked to examine it, and promised
to give an hour. "That will not do," was the
answer " it must be a morning."
; So he gave a
morning. He discovered that the children knew
the whole of the four Gospels by heart. They could
be put on anywhere, and would go straight away, the
beginning, middle, or end of a chapter, or the
beginning, middle, or end of a verse.And it was no
mere parrot-learning. They could explain in their
way what they had been taught.
These examples, which I could easily multiply,
will show that the memory is capable of the work
which I have attributed to it, and that the men of
that time and century would be likely to make use
of it But if the teaching was to be carried into
distant lands, a band of teachers must have been
prepared and set forth, taking S. Peter's Memoirs
with them. These, I maintain, were the catechists,
about whose existence and work so much incredulity
has been expressed in certain quarters. The Provost
of Trinity College, Dublin, Dr. Salmon, objects that
I use the word " catechist " in an unusual sense, to
signify an instructor of the baptized, whereas, in the
third century and afterwards, the catechist instructed
the catechumens who were candidates for baptism.
ON ORAL TEACHING 97
Dr. Salmon, however, admits that in the first century

neophytes were baptized immediately on their
profession of faith in Christ, without either in-
struction or probation. Does it not follow from this
that a catechumen, in the apostolic age, was a newly
baptized person ? And must not his education have
been in accordance with the pressing necessities of
the time? When no written Gospel existed, a
knowledge of the words and works of Christ was
the one thing which was indispensable, and the one
thing, therefore, which the catechists may be
supposed to have taught.
But neither the catechists nor their work are
inventions of mine. I have good warrant for what I
have written about them, (i) S. Paul says, "Let

him that is catechized in the Word give a share in
all good things to him that catechizeth." (Gal. vi. 6.)
From this verse it is clear that the catechist was

an unpaid agent, engaged in a highly important
work, and that he taught "the Word," by which I
understand the Gospel sections for (2) S. Luke
;
states that Theophilus had been catechized in

that very Gospel history which S. Luke himself
proposed to reduce to writing (Luke i. 4) and (3) ;
Apollos "taught with precision the facts concerning

Jesus." (Acts xviii. 25.)
Many, like Professor Sanday, feel a strong
objection to the oral hypothesis, not only in the
order of the narratives (which we have already
explained), but in the fact that so many insignificant
words, such as conjunctions, remain unaltered in all
the three Gospels. Surely, they say, such trivial
H
words as these would be the first to disappear in oral
teaching. Have we, however, any reason to think
that it would be The human memory is
so?
particularly tenacious of connecting links. A man
who recites poetry would break down if he neglected
them. When once he has thoroughly mastered his
lesson, they become as
fixed as the weightier words.
It only during the process of learning, as the
is
records passed from catechist to catechist, or by

deliberate effort, as often in S. Luke's Gospel, that
they would be changed. Quite enough of them have
been changed to make us suspicious about the use of
documents.
If my view of the whole matter is right, the proper
persons to write Gospels were the catechists, and the
natural thing for them to write was that particular
form of oral Gospel which had gradually grown up
in their own Church, and which they had long been
in the habit of frequently repeating to their pupils.
To such persons the labour of writing a Gospel
would be small. And we may well believe, as
S. Luke tells us, that many of them attempted the
task. Why they did not complete it, or why, if they
did, their work never gained general acceptance, we
are no longer in a position to examine.
S. Mark was a
primitive catechist of the earliest
type,a pupil of S. Peter, and the translator into
Greek of his Aramaic sections. He has given us in
his Gospel S. Peter's Memoirs, with a very few
remarks and additions of his own. Historical
criticism has brought to light the extreme value of
his Gospel, as being the nearest approach to S.
Peter's actual teaching.
ON ORAL TEACHING 99
Our Gospel must have been written by a

first
catechist also. It is called the Gospel "according
to S. Matthew," because its distinctive feature is

S. Matthew's " utterances of our Lord," which, how-
ever, are not given as S. Matthew taught them, but
massed together into long discourses or collections
of parables for the greater convenience of teaching.*
S. Peter's Memoirs, however, are the backbone of
this Gospel also. And a considerable number of
fragments from other sources are embedded in the
narrative, but there is very little comment or
explanation. It is usual to say that this Gospel
was intended Jewish readers it would be truer
for :
to say that had been formed in a Jewish Church.

it
Where that Church was situated I do not venture

to assert. Not in Judaea, for there is no local
colouring, no additional geographical knowledge,
such as a Palestinian must surely have contributed.
Moreover, the Rev. Thomas Barns points out to me
that the Holy Land is called "Syria" (Matt. iv. 24),
which is the name of the Roman province of which
it formed part. I infer that some Greek-speaking
community within the Roman empire is indicated.

Alexandria answers to the conditions, but I cannot
at present pronounce anything definite.! The cradle
of this Gospel was Jerusalem, but it grew to maturity
elsewhere.
S. Luke was both a and an historian.
catechist
The earlier part of his Christian life was spent at
Philippi, and it is there that he must have formed
* See above, p. 21. f See above, p. 20.

the main part of his Gospel, though he had rare
opportunities for collecting new matter while he
waited on S. Paul for two years at Caesarea. His
first two chapters are direct translations from a
written document, the original of which my colleague,
the Rev. R. H. Kennett, lecturer in Aramaic to the
University of Cambridge, suggests was in New
Hebrew rather than Aramaic. They can be retrans-
lated into Hebrew much more readily than into
Aramaic, and Hebrew was used by the learned as
Latin is still used in University life. The Rev.
Prof J. Armitage Robinson contends that they were
originally composed in Greek to imitate the style of
the Septuagint. Certainly a tendency to follow the
Septuagint is perceptible wherever S. Luke has a
free hand in writing his Gospel. Biblical facts were
naturally expressed in Biblical language, and the
Septuagint was his only Bible. The original narrator,
however, must surely have told the story in Aramaic,
not, however, perhaps reduced to literary form.
S. Luke was taught Memoirs of S. Peter when
the
about two-thirds of them only had been composed,
and thus his omissions are easily accounted for.
Into them he inserted such portions of S. Matthew's
" utterances of our Lord " as reached him piecemeal
in his distant home, finding places for them according

to their subject-matter rather than by their strict
chronology, which he had not the means of dis-
covering. His arrangement of them, therefore, differs
widely from that of the first Gospel, and is probably
even further removed from the true order. The

" third cycle " he inserted for the most part bodily
ON ORAL TEACHING loi
into the middle of his work, without any attempt at

chronological arrangement. Finally, he interspersed
throughout his work a large number of comments and
historical notes, thus making his book more complete
as a work of art than either of the other Gospels.
Such, according to the oral hypothesis, was the
genesis of our three Gospels. It was strictly in
accordance with the habits of the time and the place

of their birth. All the overwhelming difficulties
about omissions and variations in order and language

which beset the documentary hypothesis disappear.
The Gospels were written for local use; in God's
providence they were fitted for universal acceptance.
They were written for the need of one generation ;
they have satisfied the requirements of sixty. They

were published anonymously the authors' names
;
we gather from tradition. They rapidly pushed their

way over the Christian world, not by an apostolic
edict or Church Council, but because they com-
mended themselves as faithful records to the
universal Christian conscience. Out of weakness
they became strong.
The oral hypothesis receives very strong con-
firmation from the writings of the earlier Christian
Fathers. These writings teem with quotations from
the Gospel history, but it is the rarest exception for
such quotations to agree verbatim with any one of
our Gospels. No
doubt the Fathers quoted from
memory, but even that will not account for the facts.
We hold that they found it easier to quote that oral
Gospel which they had learned in their childhood,
rather than these written Gospels which had become
the treasure of their old age. Even though they
read our four Gospels aloud in the Church services,
their sermons and writings were embellished with the
older reminiscences.* For every considerable Church
must, under the oral hypothesis, have had a tradition
of its own, differing both in contents and wording
from that of other Churches, and in particular
exhibiting much mixture and many sayings of Christ
which are not in our Gospels at all.
Now, contrast with this simplicity the difficulties
which beset the documentary hypothesis. And first
its advocates, as far as they venture upon any definite
statements, are at variance between themselves. One

school repudiates the catechists, the other gladly
avails itself of their teaching. The former school is
compelled to hold, either that the discourses in S.

Matthew are free inventions, based on a few scanty
reminiscences, in which case they could hardly have
gained the sanction of the Church Catholic ; or else
that certain documents, which have perished, were
written within a few years or even months of the
Ascension, while the recollection of our Lord's
teaching was still fresh. In either case they do not
account for the divergence in wording between
S. Matthew and S. Luke, nor for the still wider
varieties in patristic quotations, nor for the loss of
these pristine documents.
The other school holds, either that a hypothetical
batch of documents based on oral tradition sprang
* Where the English Revised Version is read in Churches, ex tevipore

preachers continue to quote the old Authorised Version, because from
youth they have been familiar with it.
ON ORAL TEACHING 103
into existence about A.D. 70, rapidly spread over the

world so as to reach all our evangelists, were used as
sources of our three Gospels, and then perished,
leaving no trace behind S. Mark's
; or else that
Gospel alone was used as a source by S. Matthew
and S. Luke, oral tradition doing the rest.
It is here that the problem becomes so complex
as to be the despair of the most able and clear-
headed thinkers.
To suppose that some of the documents were in
Aramaic will not do, unless, as Professor Marshall
holds, an oral Greek version accompanied them.
The multitudinous varieties in wording are in-
explicable unless we hold, with Dr. Stanton, that,
if the evangelists had documents, they dared not use
them. The circumstances of the time compelled
them to prefer the oral tradition which was stored in
their own memory to the most venerable records by
apostolic men. And if so, why should we postulate
the existence of these documents at all ? If the
memory of the catechist supplied so much, why
should it not have been equal to everything?
name of God,
Lastly, the reluctance to use the
which remarkable feature of S. Matthew's
is a
Gospel, and may be noticed also in S. Mark, will
be appreciated if we realise the irreverence of a large
class of thoughtless boys shouting out the sacred
name after the oriental way of learning by heart.
Let no one think that this is a barren controversy.
Much depends upon it in establishing the truth, the
trustworthiness, and the inspiration of God's precious
gift to the Church.
X.
ON THE PRECEPT TO SELL YOUR

CLOAK AND BUY A SWORD
CRITICISM is not only essential to establish the

historic truth of the Gospels, but it is of practical
importance for their exegesis and in apologetics.

I shall attempt to illustrate this in the present and
following papers.
I propose to examine here one of the most interest-
ing sections of those which are peculiar to S. Luke.
It runs thus :
" And He said, When I sent you forth
without purse, or wallet, or shoes, lacked ye any-
thing? And they said. Nothing. And He said to
them. But now
him that hath a purse take it, like-
let
wise also a wallet and let him that hath no money

;
sell his cloak and buy a sword for I say unto you ;
that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me,

And He was numbered with lawless men for my ;
course drawing to a close.

is And they said. Sir,
behold, here are two swords. And He said. It is
enough." (Luke xxii. 35-38.)
I. The section is introduced by the phrase, " And
He said," not "Then said He," nor "After these
things said He," norby any of those longer prefaces
which form quite a feature in S. Luke's Gospel.
104
SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC 105
I infer from this that S. Luke wished us to under-

stand that he was not quite sure that the paragraph
belonged to the place where he has put it.
S. Luke, I hold, began to work as a catechist

—
probably at Philippi at so early a date, that his first
lessons did not contain even the whole of S. Peter's
Memoirs. Indeed, the greater part of the latest
portion of these Memoirs, lying chiefly between S.
Mark vi. 14 and viii. 10, never reached him at all.
And the second cycle of oral teaching, commonly

called S. Matthew's Logia^ was as yet scarcely begun.
In his distant Gentile home S. Luke received from
time to time, either by from friends or by
letters
word of mouth from travellers, detached parts of it,
as well as a few narratives like this, which were no
part of it, but he seldom had any other clue to the
chronology of these new sections than was contained
in the passages themselves. It was S. Luke's task, I
maintain, upon receiving a contribution to find a

suitable place for it in that ever-expanding course of
oral instruction which he gave to his pupils and
finally stereotyped in his written Gospel. By this
simple explanation, and by no other, we can account
for the extraordinary difference between S. Luke's
arrangement of conversations and S. Matthew's.
The conversations are the same, though with vary-
ing degrees of divergence, according to the precision
with which they were reported, but the context is
widely different. And S. Luke's chronology is far
less likely tobe correct than S. Matthew's.

Suppose then that this paragraph is one of those
jewels, if I may so call them, which came to S. Luke
io6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
broken loose from its original setting. He must
make a new setting for it, if it was to add its
lustre to his Gospel. And on proceeding to examine

it, he could have doubt to which part of our
little
Lord's ministry it A time of persecution

belonged.
is indicated. Hospitable homes were no longer open
to Christ's emissaries. Henceforth the disciples must
take with them a purse to buy bread and a wallet
to carry it. A sadness pervades the passage, a
melancholy, almost a despair. The shadow of the
cross restsupon it. The evangelist, therefore, has
put between the prediction of S. Peter's denials
it
and the account of the agony in Gethsemane. In

no other place would its meaning have been so
heightened.
To us, however, who have four Gospels before us,
teeming with words spoken and deeds done on that
last overwhelming night, it is a task of no small
difficulty to piece them harmoniously together, and
find the right place for each. And it is a relief to
the historical critic to find that he is under no
obligation to do so. The Gospel narratives are
seldom presented to us in their true order. Even
" straightway," " then," or " after these things," cannot
always be pressed. Much less can a plain " And He

said be decisive of the date. Many words assigned
"
by one or other of the evangelists to that supreme

night may have been spoken at some other time
during the preceding week. S. Luke's paragraph
would suit any stage in the last journey. From its
mournful tone we are disposed to refer it to that time

of anxiety when our Lord first set out for Jerusalem.
SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. 107
The student of the Gospels will be saved many hours

of anxious labour he learns how unchronological
if
the synoptic Gospels are. How could S. Luke,

arranging detached narratives at Philippi for the
immediate need of his pupils, have discovered the
true order ? Why should he have thought it of any
great importance to do so ?
II. "When I sent you forth without purse, or

wallet, or shoes, lacked ye anything ? " There is an
allusion to the first mission of the Twelve, when
Christ " sent them forth two by two into every city
and village into which He himself would come." An
account of this mission was given in S. Peter's
Memoirs, for it was an important epoch in that
apostle's life. And as S. Peter's narrative is
reproduced in each of the synoptic Gospels, it is

interesting to observe the variations which have been
made by the catechists. These variations are so
in it
no hypothesis of copying from a written

curious, that
document, whether Greek or Aramaic, can account
for them. The changes must be due to the un-
conscious working of human memory during a long
period of oral transmission.
S. Mark, preserving as usual S. Peter's words with
much precision, writes, " Take nothing for your
journey save a staff only, not bread, not a wallet,
not copper for your belt, but be shod with sandals,
and do not put on two tunics." (vi. 8.) S. Matthew,
with more than his customary changes, gives,
" Provide no gold nor silver nor copper for your
belts, not a wallet for the road, nor two tunics, nor
shoes, nor a staff." (x. 9, 10.) St. Luke, with un-

io8 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
wonted brevity, has, " Take nothing for your journey,
neither staff nor wallet, nor bread, nor silver coin, nor
two tunics to wear." (ix. 3.)
The only coins minted in Palestine during the
Roman Being of small value,
period were of copper.
and from idolatrous symbols, they circulated
free
freely amongst the poor. S. Mark's "Take no
copper" is probably the original precept. But to
prevent mistake, S. Matthew has expanded it into
" no gold nor silver nor copper." S. Luke has
altered it into "no silver coin," because silver in
imperial times was the only legal tender at Rome,
until "silver," like the Scotch "siller," became the
ordinary expression for " money."
Here then we have examples of changes made by
the catechists in the wording of S. Peter's Memoirs,
either to prevent misunderstanding or to suit the
different environment of their pupils.
A more serious difficulty arises about the shoes
and the staff. S- Mark enjoins the use of both, S.
Matthew prohibits both, S. Luke prohibits the staff,
and says nothing about the shoes. In his instruc-
tions, however, to the Seventy in the next chapter,
he bids them go forth "without purse or wallet or
shoes." (x. 4.)
This discrepancy was observed in very early times.

The first harmonist with whose works we are
acquainted is Tatian, who wrote about A.D. 160.
In his Dia Tessaron, written in Syriac, but translated
into Arabic, of which version a copy has been recently
discovered, he undertook to construct a complete Life
of Christ by piecing our four Gospels together into
one continuous narrative. In this way he produced a

book of considerable and heavy,
interest, but dull
overloaded with words, and possessing none of the
literary charm which characterizes our Gospels. It
became, however, so popular that the Bishop

Theodoret was obliged to prohibit its use in the
churches of his diocese, because it was actually super-
seding the Gospels.
Tatian deals with the passage thus :
" Provide not
gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, not a wallet
for the road, not bread, nor shoes, nor a staff but a
cane only be shod with sandals, and do not put on
;
two tunics." Tatian evidently assumes (as later

commentators have strangely done) that there was
such a difference between sandals and shoes that
the one must be forbidden as a luxury, the other
enjoined as necessary and although the Greek word
;
for a " staff" (pd/SSog) is the same, he seems to think

that the original Aramaic must have been different.
A staff to walk with would be an unwarranted
indulgence to the flesh, a stick to chase away the
dogs which encompass the traveller's path in an
Eastern village must be conceded.
All honour to Tatian for his conscientious attempt
to serve his day and generation, but when a Scotch
writer of the present time, working on similar lines,
suggests that pd/3So^ in S. Mark means a " staff," but
in S. Matthew a " tent-pole," we must protest against
such trifling with sacred records. It is true that

pd/SSog, like " stick," may have many meanings, but,
as in English, if you told a man who was setting out
on a journey to take a stick, he could only under-
no NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
stand you to mean a walking-stick, so also in Greek
the context is decisive. It would be absurd to speak
of a tent-pole without mention of a tent. And
the divergence in narrative could only be accounted
for in this way, if S. Peter's Memoirs had originally a
double sentence, " Go shod with sandals, but not with
shoes, and take a cane, but not a staff," of which
S. Mark in each case has preserved the first member
and the other evangelists the second. Such a sup-
position is altogether improbable. Rather, therefore,
must we admit that oral tradition is not always to
be trusted in preserving these complex regulations.
There is a tendency towards severity. The priests
in the temple went bare-foot when performing their
sacred duties, why should not Christ's servants do
the same ? Mankind are fond of imposing irksome
rules on those who are engaged in specially sacred
work.
be noticed as an indication of
III. It is further to
the esteem in which S. Luke held verbal
light
precision that, although he has exactly reproduced
the three words, " purse, wallet, shoes," from his own
Gospel, he has not taken them from our Lord's
instructions to the Twelve, but from His instructions
to the Seventy.
S. Luke could easily have turned back his own
pages and verified the reference, correcting either the
one passage or the other until he made them agree,
but he has not done so. The self-contradiction
remains, as in several passages in the Acts of the
Apostles(ix. 3-9 = xxii. 6-11= xxvi. 12-18; x. 1-48 =
xi. 1-18).
SELL YOUR CLOAK, ETC. in
If what we have advanced above is a true account
of the matter, it evidently follows that the two words,
"or shoes," were no authentic part of our Lord's
saying on this occasion, but arose from that assimi-
lation of doublets which is a necessary feature of
oral tradition. That this is so is seen on a close
examination of the passage for not only do these
;
two words destroy the balance of the sentence, but

there is nothing corresponding to them in the next
clause, which is constructed with precise parallelism :
" But now let him that hath a purse take it, likewise
also a wallet."
Lastly, the word " purse " is another adaptation to
local requirements. S. Peter had said, " Take no
copper for your beltl' a phrase which S. Mark and
S. Matthew retain, because the tunic of a Jew was
fastened round the body with a belt (Acts xii. 8),
which, whether made of leather or raw hide (Mark
i. 6), was doubled and stitched till the hollow thus
produced formed an excellent purse. But this

custom, though known to Roman soldiers (Hor. Ep,
ii. 2. 40), does not seem to have prevailed in the
civil life of Gentiles. They carried their coins

(which were of silver) in their mouth or in a pouch.
Hence S. Luke's alteration.
I venture to press these facts upon the student,
because most commentators take pains to obscure
them. Yet surely they are full of significance.
They teach us to value the general sense more
than the words, the spiritual lesson more than the
picturesque surroundings.
IV. "And let him that hath no money sell his
cloak and buy a sword." No doubt this precept
means that every Christian missionary must provide
himself with a sword, even though it be at the cost of
parting with his cloak.
The extreme urgency of the order will be seen if
we remember how important a part the cloak played
in the dress of a Jew. It was not indeed a necessity.
It was during the hours of work. But if
laid aside
the climate of Palestine, a country the main ridge of
which on an average is 2500 feet above the sea-level,
made it necessary for the aged and infirm to wear
two tunics in cold weather ("Then the high priest
rent his tunics," Mark xiv. 63), much more was a
cloak needful for everyone in the winter evenings.
By the poor it was also used as a blanket. And the
humane legislation of the Old Testament enjoined
upon even the money-lender that he should in any
case restore it at sunset when it had been given as a
pledge, for else wherein was its owner to sleep ?
**
(Ex. xxii. 26, 28.)

But Christ'smessengers must not think of bodily
comfort. "If they have no money, they must sell
their cloak and buy a sword."
Three notable interpretations are offered of this
startling paradox —
the mystical, the allegorical, the
literal. The mystics said that the " two swords " which
the disciples produced in reply are the temporal and

the spiritual power, without which the Church is not
perfect. According to this explanation, our Lord's
rejoinder, " It is enough," signifies His approval,
whereas any other explanation requires that it should
signify disapproval, as though He had said, " I will
say no more you have not understood Me."
:
Mystical was once universal in

interpretation
dealing with Old Testament and common in
the
dealing with the New. It is the glory of our age
to have thrown discredit on so fanciful and phantastic
a device, which we would not tolerate in the interpre-
tation of any except sacred books. Few persons now
would admit it here.
The allegorizer says that the sword in Christ's
thought was not of steel, but referred rather to
intellectual weapons. The missionary of the future
would have to face antagonists, and must be
prepared to do battle with them on their own
ground. Education was henceforth essential for him.
Rhetoric, oratory, philosophy, could not be dispensed
with. A S. Paul would succeed where a S. Peter
might fail to secure a hearing.
This is true, and contains a useful lesson for those
who are preparing for holy orders. Let them as a
matter of duty do their utmost to acquire the best
possible training. Especially let them investigate
the pressing questions of the day.
But this interpretation does not lie on the surface.
It isan extension rather than the original meaning.
We come therefore to the literal sense.
In quiet easy times of prosperity Christ's
the
messengers had had a simple task. Their glad
tidings had found a way to ready minds and hearts.
Loving disciples had vied with one another in
supplying their bodily needs. But a different day
was dawning now. The 53rd chapter of Isaiah,
which says of the Messiah, " He was numbered with
lawless men," and goes on to speak of death and
burial, would soon be fulfilled. And "if they
I
persecute Me, they will also persecute you." You
must take nothing from them. You must earn your
own money and provide your own food. You will
be brought before kings and rulers. You will
encounter brigands and assassins. For your defence
you must learn to wield a sword.
This is the only interpretation which satisfies the
context. It was when the disciples understood Him
too literally that He cut them short. Oriental figures
of speech were not to be taken in their strict sense.
No servant of Christ could really go forth with a

sword. " that take the sword shall perish by
They
the sword." Rather he must go expecting opposition,
with the martyr spirit, but as a good soldier of the
cross.
Does anyone think it impossible that Christ could
thus positively have made a command and then
immediately on second thoughts explained it away
by a kind of recantation? Let him beware of
denying the reality of the Incarnation. That our
Lord should have had a human mind is an essential
part of that inexplicable mystery. And impossible
though it be for us to understand the union of so
finite and limited a thing with the fulness of the
Godhead, we must not on that account deny it.
And we have at least one, and that a more striking
example of its presence, when Christ said, " It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
God," that is, " It is absolutely impossible for a rich
man to be saved," and yet presently added, " With
men this is impossible, but not with God for with ;
God all things are possible." (Mark x. 27.)

XI.
S. MARK'S TESTIMONY TO THE

RESURRECTION
THE present paper

criticism in apologetics.
shows the importance of
In our own day the witness of S. Mark to the

Resurrection has been thought to be somewhat im-
paired by the rapid growth of the doubt which has
always rested upon the last twelve verses of his
Gospel.
Many persons have upheld the genuineness of
these verses, chiefly from a conviction that they are
genuine, but partly, perhaps, from a fear that if we
surrender them we should be doing violence to our
idea of what Holy Scripture is and ought to be,
should be opening the door to the adversary, and
giving occasion for stumbling to those who are timid
and weak in the faith.
To the former feeling we would wish to do full
justice, against the latter we would enter a protest.
If the Church is the custodian of Holy Writ, those
of her members who by education or official position
have the responsibility of guiding opinion are bound
to face the facts, and not yield to their wishes or
fears.
"5
ii6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
If internal evidence is — as we believe it to be
decisive against the said verses, and external evidence,
when properly examined, is almost equally fatal, it is
our duty fearlessly to proclaim the state of things.
We need not tremble lest the truth should suffer by
the avowal of truth. Our own ideas about the canon
may have be readjusted. But it is better to stand
to
upon a foundation which cannot be moved, than to
insist on holding ground which in the day of struggle
will crumble away beneath our feet.
If, however, we take this view about these verses, it
becomes our duty to examine the real extent of our

loss. And therefore in this paper I propose to say
something about S. Mark's witness to the Resurrection
apart from these twelve verses, for some persons have
hastily assumed that if these verses are set aside the
Resurrection itself might be allowed to disappear from
the Christian creed.

In the first half of S. Mark's Gospel, immediately
after S. Peter's confession of the Messiahship of
Christ, stand these words :
" And He began to teach
them, that the Son of Man must suffer many things,
and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests,
and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days
rise again." (Mark viii. 31.)
These words, in the same context, and with no
alterations of any consequence, were transferred from
S. Mark's oral teaching into S. Luke's, and at a
somewhat later date into S. Matthew's also. They
therefore, we have good reason to believe, must have
formed part of the earliest edition of S. Mark's oral
Gospel. They must have been taught in the Church
S. MARK AND THE RESURRECTION ii;
of Jerusalem before S. Paul's first missionary journey-

began, within at least seventeen years after the cruci-
fixion ; nay, probably within twelve years, before S.
Peter took up his residence at Joppa. They were,
therefore, most firmly believed in the very place
where the events had happened, and while hundreds
of Christians were living who knew what could be
known about it. They were accepted in Judaea,
Samaria, Antioch, and all other churches in which S.
Mark's Gospel, in its oral form, was the sole exponent
of the faith.
In the next chapter we read that as the disciples

descended from the Mount of Transfiguration Jesus
"charged them that they should tell no man what
things they had seen, save when the Son of Man
should have risen again from the dead." (Mark ix. 9.)
These words did not pass into S. Luke's Gospel,

but they did into S. Matthew's, (xvii. 9.) We infer
that they were not yet part of S. Mark's Gospel
when that Gospel was first carried westward. They
belong to what we have called the second edition of
S. Mark, i,e.^ to those sections which were added to
the oral teaching at Jerusalem after the year 47 A.D.
In the early stages of Christianity the apostles
had been popular with the masses but as time ;
went on a change came over the public feeling.

" Herod the king slew S. James with the sword.
And when he saw that it pleased the Jews^ he pro-

ceeded further to take S. Peter also." (Acts xii. 3.)
Persecution became the rule. To profess Christ was
not only to be excommunicated from the synagogue,
but was to incur the wrath of the civil ruler. The
ii8 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
officers men whose lives were in
of the Church were
danger. Did that make them untrue to their trust ?
Did they give up or conceal their principles ? On
the contrary, they only sought occasion for further
avowing them. Instead of removing the prediction
of our Lord that He would rise again from the dead,
they recalled to memory other occasions on which
He had foretold it and thus this paragraph was
;
added to the cycle of teaching.

Further on in the same chapter we read, "Jesus
taught His disciples, and said unto them, The Son of
Man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they
shall kill Him and when He is killed, after three days
;
He shall rise again." (Mark ix. 31.)

This, the second prediction of the Passion, is found
also in S. Matthew (xvii. 23) ; but in S. Luke (ix. 44)
the last clause about rising again is not found. Either,
therefore, that clause is a later addition, made, when
the love of many was growing cold, to strengthen
those who remained, or it has dropped out of S.
Luke because it was regarded by him as superfluous.
S. Luke's Gospel was used in Pauline churches and ;
wherever S. Paul taught, belief in the Resurrection

was so foremost an article of the creed, that the
constant assertion of it was unnecessary.
In the tenth chapter we read the third prediction
of the Passion, and this time all three Gospels unite
in their witness to the Resurrection. For S. Mark
writes, in words of unusual solemnity, " And they
were in the way going up to Jerusalem and Jesus ;
was going before them and they were amazed and

: ;
they that followed were afraid. And He took again

S. MARK AND THE RESURRECTION 119
the twelve, and began to tell them the things that
were to happen unto Him, saying, Behold, we go up

to Jerusalem and the Son of Man shall be delivered
;
unto the chief priests and the scribes and they shall ;
condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him

unto the Gentiles and they shall mock Him, and
:
shall spit upon Him, and shall scourge Him, and

shall kill Him and after three days He shall rise
;
again." (x. 32-34.)

The unique solemnity of the opening words not
only indicates the effect upon our Lord's human mind
of the truths which He was announcing, but also the
abiding impression which they made upon those who
heard Him though at the time " they understood
; for
not the saying," it is abundantly plain that they were
awe-stricken by our Lord's manner.
Lastly, on the Mount of Olives, after the last
supper, Jesus said to His disciples, " Howbeit, after
I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."
(xiv. 28.)
Now is it possible, I ask, that if S. Mark had
denied or doubted the Resurrection, he would have
preserved these sayings — five times repeated — of his
Lord concerning it? Would he not have forgotten
them, or kept them back? He had abundance of
time to reflect on this question, for he can hardly
have finally committed his teaching to writing before
the destruction of Jerusalem, and yet all five of the
predictions are deliberately recorded in it.
It is certain from the whole tone of his Gospel

that he was writing an account of One whom he
regarded as an altogether supernatural Being. It
will not suffice to say that S. Mark held our Lord
to be superior to Moses, or to Elijah, or to John the
Baptist. It is as clear as he can make itthat he
regarded Him Son of God, in the highest
as the
sense in which those words can be understood. He
is second to none in thus bearing witness.
Why, then, should he five times put into our

Lord's mouth the prediction that He would rise from
the dead, unless he was as firmly convinced, as
Christians always have been, that the Resurrection
was an actual fact ?
whole of his last chapter had been lost, and

If the
not merely the concluding verses, we should have
felt sure that S. Mark agreed with S. Peter, S. Paul,
S. John, S. Matthew, S. James, and every other New
Testament writer, that Christ was proved to be the
Son of God with power by the Resurrection from the
dead.
We now come to his last chapter. "And when
the Sabbath was passed " {i.e.,
about seven o'clock on
Saturday night), "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the
mother of James, and Salome, brought spices, that
they might come and anoint Him."
Then, after the night's rest, " very early on the first
day of the week " {i.e., about four o'clock on Sunday
morning), ** they come to the tomb when the sun had
risen'^ —such is the MSS. reading; and that it has
stood so long, in face of the assertion of S. John
that it was still dark, is a proof of the fidelity of
scribes.But assuredly a negative (ya?i7rc«)) must be
inserted " When the sun had not yet risen."
: Not
so much to bring S. Mark into agreement with the
testimony of all the other Gospels — for discrepancies

of this kind are frequent in the New Testament
but to reconcile him with himself ; for by " very
early in the morning " no ancient writer could mean
after sunrise. This, we may feel confident, should
be added to the list of primitive errors.
"And they were saying among themselves, Who
shall roll us away the stone from the door of the
tomb? and looking up, they see that the stone is
rolledaway for it was exceeding great. And enter-
:
ing into the tomb, they saw a young man " (S. Luke
and S. John say TWO on the right
angels) "sitting
side, arrayed in a white robe and they were amazed.
;
And he saith unto them, Be not amazed ye seek :
Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath been crucified He :
is risen He is not here behold, the place where

; :
they laid Him But go, tell His disciples and Peter
!
that He goeth before you into Galilee there shall :
ye see Him, as He said unto you. And they went

out, and fled from the tomb for trembling and ;
astonishment had come upon them and they said ;
nothing to any one for they were afraid."

;
Does any candid student of this passage doubt

that S. Mark believed in the Resurrection ? Observe
how he draws attention to our Lord's prediction
of it. Observe how he repeats the order that the
Twelve should go into Galilee. But because he stops
there, and does not record any appearance of Christ,
therefore we are told by certain persons that S. Mark
knew of no such appearance the disciples were —
put off with prophecies and promises they never ;
beheld their risen Lord.

But can any one really suppose that S. Mark
stopped here ? Is it not certain that his last sentences
have been obliterated ? And, if so, what did they
contain ?
We can have very little doubt on that question.

Throughout his Gospel S. Matthew has adhered
most closely to S. Mark. He has many discourses,
parables, and sayings which are not found in S. Mark,
but only on the rarest occasions does he omit any
historical narratives which S. Mark has given. It is
to S. Matthew, therefore, and not to S. Luke (as some

contend), that we must turn if we would supply the
lost verses. S. Luke says nothing from beginning to
end about the returning to Galilee, but S. Mark has
made and most certainly
this a feature in the story,
must have told us how the disciples went there
and were met by their Lord.
In S. Matthew, therefore, we find this continuation:
"They ran to bring His disciples word. And behold,
Jesus met them, saying, All hail And they came !
and took Him by His feet, and worshipped Him.

Then saith Jesus unto them, Fear not: go tell My
brethren that they depart into Galilee, and there
shall they see Me."
Then after a few verses from another source, S.
Matthew continues But the eleven disciples went
:
"
into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had

appointed them. And when they saw Him, they
worshipped Him but some doubted. And Jesus
:
came to them and spake unto them, saying. All

authority hath been given unto Me in heaven
and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make dis-
ciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the

name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things
:
whatsoever I commanded you and lo, I am with you :
alway, even unto the end of the world."

Such, in substance, must have been the last verses
of S. Mark's Gospel.
Wehave five accounts of the Resurrection. First,
that which is common to S. Mark and S. Matthew
then S. Paul's ; next, some facts peculiar to S.
Matthew; after that S. Luke's and, finally, S. John's. ;
These accounts differ considerably from one another,

and are so difficult to piece together, that some
persons condemn them as unhistorical, and declare
that they must be given up.
Entirely different from this is the verdict of
scientific criticism. The more divergent narratives
are, and the more difficult to reconcile, so long as
they are not absolutely contradictory, the more
valuable is their testimony; for the differences
prove that they are independent, and not mere
repetitions from the same source.
From the very earliest Christian times, as recorded
in the Acts of the Apostles, to the latest the Resur-
rection is the chief fact attested. Indeed, Christianity
is built upon it. The existence of the Church during
all the centuries is an expression of the confidence
in its truth. History, as well as criticism, leaves us
no room to question this. On so sure a foundation
is our most holy faith erected.
But the best witness to the Resurrection is its

power over the hearts of those who believe it. "If
ye then be risen with Christ," S. Paul writes, "seek
those things which are above, where Christ sitteth
on the right hand of God. Set your affections on
things above, and not on things upon the earth.
Mortify your affections which are upon the earth.
For ye are dead, and your Hfe is hid with Christ
in God. When Christ, who is our Hfe, shall appear,
then shall ye also appear with Him in glory."
(Col. iii. 1-4.)
XII.
THE CAMEL AND THE NEEDLE'S EYE
FEW of our Lord's sayings obtained an earlier

or a wider recognition than this. It was freely
circulated in the days of the Church, or it would
first
not have appeared in S. Mark's Gospel. It retained

its hold on the memory of the Church at Jerusalem
when S. James, the Lord's brother, succeeded to S.

Peter's chair, or it would not be found in S. Matthew.
It spread among the Gentiles, and was often on the

lips of S. Paul, or we should not read it in S. Luke.
If it is lawful to look for earthly reasons to account
for this triple attestation, we may surmise that its
place in S. Mark is due to its startling nature ; for

in the earliest days the chief endeavour of the new
teachers was to arrest attention. Its place in S.
Matthew may be due to its Rabbinical form. The
Jews would be attracted by the oriental hyperbole.
Its place in S. Luke may be assigned to its philo-
sophical depth. The " Greeks sought wisdom," and
might find it here.
But who shall say with what different feelings the
words have been repeated through the ages by
different men ? At one time the rich man may have
found in them an excuse for gainsaying, while with
125
no real earnestness he muses, as Shakespeare re-
presents :
"My thoughts of things divine are intermixed

With scruples, and do set the Word itself
Against the Word :
As thus, *
Come, little ones,' and then again,
'
It is as hard to come, as for a camel
To thread the postern of a small needle's eye.'"
{Richard IL^ Act V., Scene 5.)
At another time the poor man may have repeated

the verse with unholy satisfaction. Let us make
every allowance for him. He had a hard lot, and
felt its bitterness. He was filled with envy and
malice and wrath, not knowing that these were
the works of the evil one. He grasped at the
words because their outer form gratified his excited
feelings but he knew not he could not fathom
; —
the depth of sorrow in the Saviour's heart, of which
they were the sad expression.
And a similar want of sympathy with Christ may
lie at the root of those numerous attempts to soften
down the severity of the saying which have been

made in different ages by the scribe, the critic, the
commentator.
First came the scribe, who, with that wanton
boldness which happily expired at the end of the
second century, presumed to alter the words of the
evangelist.
According to the true text, S. Mark's narrative ran
thus : "And Jesus looked round about and saith unto
His disciples. How hardly shall they that have riches
enter into the kingdom of God ! And the disciples
THE CAMEL AND NEEDLE'S EYE 127
were amazed at His words. But Jesus answereth

again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard a
thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God !
Then follows the saying.

But this simple and striking sentence, " How hard
a thing it is to enter into the kingdom of God !
was altered by a very early scribe through an inter-

pretation of his own, " How hard a thing it is for
them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom
of God"; and this false reading has obtained gradual
currency, because it seems at first sight to sustain the
argument and to explain it, though on closer
examination it will be found to spoil it.
Still less happy was the work of the

critic. Theo-
phylact tells one such conjectured that
us that
KajuLrjXog, a camel, should be altered into /ca/x^Xo?, a cable,
because a camel has nothing to do with a needle,

but a cable might be threaded, if it were not too thick,
and the pronunciation of the two words would be
almost identical in the first century. I pass over
the question whether the word KcijuiXog was invented
for the occasion ; it is certainly of doubtful authority.
But surely the close resemblance between and
Ka/uLTJXo^
KCi/uLiXog exists only in Greek, whereas our Lord spoke

in Aramaic, in which the saying must have been a
proverbial one, for the Talmud reproduces it in a
slightly altered form :
" It is easier for an elephant
to go through a needle's eye."
has been reserved for the commentator to
It
suggest a more plausible explanation.
In the description of a journey through Hebron,
Lord Nugent wrote " We were proceeding through
:
a double gateway .... there was one wt'de-arched
road, and another narrow one for foot passengers by
its side. We met a caravan of loaded camels. The
drivers cried out to us to betake ourselves for safety
.... to the smaller arch. They called it the kole, or
eye of the needle. ... this name is applied, not
If .
only to this gate at Hebron, but to all similar gates,

it may give an easy solution of what has appeared
to some the strained metaphor of the camel going '
through the needle's eye.' A camel could not be

made to pass through the smaller gate except with
great difficulty, and stripped of the encumbrances of
its load, its trappings, and its merchandise.""^
Many people have gladly adopted this suggestion.
In the Revised Version you will find that the words
" the eye of a needle " have in each case been altered
to " the needle's eye," out of deference, no doubt, to
this interpretation.
The explanation, however, appears not to be a new
one. thought that Shakespeare was acquainted
It is
with it when he wrote in the passage which I have
just quoted, ''
To thread the postern of a small needle's
eye " ; for a " postern " is a little back door, or back
entrance, of a castle. And although the language is
reduced to chaos by the combination of the literal

meaning with the figurative, it is difficult to account
in any other way for the poet's words.
Now it is notorious in the East that whenever the
Arabs discover that European travellers are on the
look-out for certain words or names, no opportunity
is lost of repeating them. Whatever you want to
* Lands Classical and Sacred^ i. 326.
hear you will hear. And therefore it is no argu-
ment to say that the phrase "needle's eye" is now

universally current in the Holy Land for a postern
gate unless you can show that the phrase is really
ancient, and was not first suggested by a too simple
traveller.
And this interpretation is not so probable as at
first sight it appears
it removes all ex-
; certainly
aggeration from our Lord's words, reducing them
indeed to a feeble commonplace. But are there no
other sayings of His which are exaggerated } Did
He never say that the Pharisees devoured widows'
houses? that a man cannot add one cubit (half a
yard) to his stature, as if half an inch were not
enough? Is it possible literally to have a beam in

the eye ? Can you strain out the intrusive gnat and
then swallow the camel ?
In all these cases our Lord spoke to Orientals in
an oriental manner. Western logic may think the
language unnatural but a poet's fancy feels little
;
difficulty about it. Southey, at any rate, seems to

have caught the spirit of the passage when he wrote:
" I would ride the camel,
Yea, leap him flying, through the needle's eye,
As easily as such a pampered soul
Could pass the narrow gate."
But, the reader may object, there something

is
more than hyperbole here. Explain the words as you

will, they cannot amount to less than this, that " it is
impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom."

That, I maintain, is precisely what they do mean.
They were wrung from the Saviour's human heart
K
by the smart of a great disappointment. The young
man over whom He had yearned had gone away
sorrowful, because he had great possessions. And in
the first blow of this grief our Lord exclaimed, " A
rich man Immediately
cannot enter the kingdom."
afterwards He It was hard
modified the expression.
for anyone, it was inexpressibly hard for a rich man,
to enter. But God's grace could enable him to do
so. " For the things which are impossible with men,
are possible with God."

Thus interpreted, the text will be a good example
of the reality of our Lord's human mind, for we
see second thoughts correcting a too sweeping
expression.
So far we have dwelt on the form of the saying.
Now let us add something to the teaching itself, that
it is peculiarly hard for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of God.
There is a passage in Plato* where Socrates is
represented as asking a rich old man what he had

found to be the chief advantage of wealth. And the
man replies :
" I am getting old, and I am forced to
think about death and the coming world. Riches
have enabled me to offer to the gods an unusual
abundance of have also had no tempta-
sacrifices ; I
tion to steal from my And so I can

fellow-men.
contemplate the future with complacency."
Whether Plato himself meant any irony here may
be matter of opinion, but it is certain that the mass
of his readers would detect none, for he was but
giving expression to the common opinion.
* Republic^ i. cap. v.
The Jewish system of sacrifices had inevitably

fostered the same behef Sacrifices were costly, and
the rich alone could offer them properly. In vain
had the prophets extolled the piety of the poor. In
vain had our Lord said, " Blessed are ye poor, for
yours is the kingdom of heaven." Such teaching
had already been forgotten by the disciples. If the
rich could not be saved, who then could ?
was necessary to teach in a more incisive

It
manner and our Lord did so when He spake
;
the parable of the rich fool and the rich man and
Lazarus, when He declared that the poor widow
with her two mites had cast into the treasury more
than all, but not least when He pronounced the
paradox, " It is easier for a camel to go through
the needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into
the kingdom of God."
But why was it specially difficult for the rich to
follow Christ? Because their whole education had
taught them to value what He considered unim-
portant. Gold with them is the measure of all
things, but it will not purchase heaven. The

almighty, omnipotent God is altogether superior
to bribery.
In that single sentence the whole fabric of false
religion is overthrown ; the righteousness of God
is vindicated. Nothing will avail with Him but a
broken heart, a consecrated life, a perfect self-
surrender, No wonder that it is hard to enter the

kingdom
Happy they who enter it in infancy, who carry
out their baptismal vows as fast as their childish
intellect develops, who learn to love God before they
discover the attractions of the world or know the
worth of money.
For them riches, like everything else, may be
made a means of grace. For with Christ "all
things are ours.*^ Riches as well as poverty may
become a blessing. S. Paul expressly says, " Charge
them that are rich in this world, that they be ready
to give and glad to distribute laying up in
. . .
store for themselves a good foundation against the

time to come, that they may lay hold on eter7tal lifer *
Christ has made this possible. He has shown
that there is a Gospel for the rich as well as for the
poor. Was not Barnabas rich ? t Was not Zacchseus
rich?:}: Did not Joseph of Arimathaea devote large
wealth to the honour of his Master's burial ?§
And were not all these men following however —
—
remotely the example of Him who, though He was
rich, yet for our sakes became poor ?
Yes, that absolute surrender of the only perfect
wealth has not only set us an example, the spirit
of which has been wonderfully followed, but it has

altered for us the very notion of wealth. Men have
not merely sought to be "rich in good works" and
" richtowards God," but they have come to recognize
the responsibilities of material wealth. It is im-
possiblenow to ask, May I ''

not do what I will
with mine own ? " Men have learned —stern facts
in modern history have wonderfully quickened the

lesson —that nothing is our own. We hold every-
* I Tim. vi. 17-19. t Acts iv. 37.
X Luke xix. 2. § Mark xv. 46.

thing in trust, to be used for the common good.

Not only do we owe duties to our family, but to
our town, our nation, to Greater Britain, yea, to the
human race. Each and all of them have claims
upon us which the world in Christ's time never
recognised, but which He has opened our eyes to
see; and if we will not learn the lesson peacefully
from Christ, it will be forced upon us by the uprising
of a down-trodden people.
The words are true enough still, but they are
not so bitterly true as when first they were spoken.
A wealthy man
then was almost as a matter of
course a slave-owner. From his youth he had been
trained to crush and keep down his servants, to hold
cheap their lives and their honour, to despise the
very notion of their rights.
No wonder that "not many rich, not many
mighty, not many noble were called."* Still, the
apostle did not write " not any." Even in his day
the camel, by God's help, had passed the needle's
eye. Men had learned (as they may still learn)
"not to trust in uncertain riches, but in the living
God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." t
* I Cor. 1. 26. t I Tim. vi. 17,

XIII.
THE ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER
PROFESSOR GARDNER'S pamphlet on this

subject* is very attractive. The tone is modest
and conciliatory ; the scholarship is of the highest
the difficulties have been carefully considered and
the objections anticipated. With much of what he
writes, all who have studied the subject will agree
nay, more, they will be grateful for the illustrations
which his special knowledge gives ; and yet from his
main conclusions we feel bound to dissent.
Some persons will retort that all criticism tends in
the same direction, and that our only safety lies in
the strict conservatism of the late Dean Burgon, who

laid down the rule that if a single word in the Bible
fall short of being in the fullest sense the Word of
God, the whole of our Christianity must be aban-
doned. Being unwilling to leave any excuses for such
counsels of despair, we proceed to examine these new
proposals.
Dr. Gardner offers us the choice of two positions.
One, to which he apparently inclines, makes the
scene of breaking bread, which the synoptists unite
in placing at the Last Supper in or about the year
• Macmillan and Co., London, 1893.

134
ORIGIN OF THE LORD'S SUPPER 135
29, to be antedated by almost a quarter of a century.

Our Lord did not say while He was upon earth,
" This is My Body" but S. Paul in a trance at
Corinth in the year 53 heard Him say the words in
heaven. More timid or cautious readers are offered
an alternative, according to which Christ broke bread
and gave it to His disciples upon earth, but nothing
further was done. No sacrament of the Lord's
Supper was instituted until S. Paul in a vision beheld
the scene repeated, and heard a new command, " This
do in remembrance of Me." He thereupon founded
the Eucharist, partly in obedience to the command,
partly in imitation of the Eleusinian mysteries, by
which he had recently been impressed.
Dr. Gardner, like most of what I may call the
more advanced critics, rejects the oral hypothesis
respecting the origin of the synoptic Gospels. And
no wonder for this hypothesis is fatal
; to his specu-
lations. For example, it is essential to his first
proposal to hold that S. Paul's Epistle to the Corin-

thians, which is generally allowed to have been
written in the year 58, is far earlier than any of our
Gospels. But the advocate of the oral hypothesis
replies, " I admit that the synoptic Gospels were not
written before the eighth decade of the first century,
but I a large part of them, including the
insist that
account of the Last Supper, existed in an oral form
a generation earlier. The bulk of S. Peter's Memoirs,
which constitute the first cycle of oral Gospel, must
have been composed within twelve years of the
Ascension, or I cannot account for their wide dis-
tribution and their multitudinous variations. And
whatever is found in all three Evangelists belongs to
the earliest part of S. Peter's work."
Now, there is no question between us that the
account of the Last Supper in S. Paul, S. Mark, S.
Matthew, and S. Luke comes in great measure from
the same source. Dr. Gardner insists upon that fact
as strongly as I do. Whether S. Paul or S. Peter is
the ultimate authority for it is simply a question of

dates. Dr. Gardner, in saying that S. Paul was the
author, is ignoring the primitive oral teaching, the
existence of which in the first age few people who
have examined the subject will venture to deny, how-
ever much they may seek to minimise its influence.
And must hold him to that
I point, as the one
essential contention between us.
The truth of the oral hypothesis is established
partly by the habits and prejudices of the age, partly
by minute study of the resemblances and divergences
of the same sections in the three Gospels. The very
paragraph about the institution of the Lord's Supper
furnishes some interesting examples. For S. Luke
has some curious reversals of. order. He puts the
prediction of Judas Iscariot's treachery after the
institution of the Lord's Supper, whereas the other
two evangelists have put it before the Supper; and,
according to the true text, he represents that the cup
was given before the bread. Nor is this unparalleled.
He presents us with an exactly similar transposition
in the early part of his Gospel, where he reverses the
order of the second and third temptations. (Luke iv.
5-12; Matthew iv. 5-10.) Such transpositions are

easily accounted for, on the supposition that men
learned Gospel sections by heart, and stored

the
them in a memory which was trustworthy enough
when it had mastered the lesson, but was apt to be
treacherous during the initial stages. They are
almost impossible to account for if the evangelists
were copying from a document.
Much of the wording also is strangely altered, not
more so than in most passages of the triple tradition ;
but we should have expected to find this less altered,

for it has long been observed that the words of Christ
have been more scrupulously preserved in the Gospels
than the rest of the narrative. Reverence for the
Master's sayings has checked, as I hold, the care-
lessness or presumption of catechists. Why should
it not have done so here? The answer may seem
paradoxical, but the very gravity of the occasion
would appear to have been the cause for increased
changes. At any rate, the same thing has happened
in two other utterances of the first importance the —
Lord's Prayer and the baptismal formula. S. Luke's
recension of the Lord's Prayer, according to the true
text (xi. 2 ff.), is much shorter than S. Matthew's
(vi.9 ff.). And S. Matthew's Gospel directs baptism

to be administered in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (xxviii. 19); but
S. Luke and S. Paul invariably represent it as adminis-
tered in the name of the Lord Jesus. (Acts ii.38, viii. 16,
X. 48, xix. 5 Rom. vi. 3 Gal. iii. 27 Col.
; ; 12.) ; ii.
It appears to me that we may account for these

changes by the reflex action of the liturgies upon
the oral Gospel. Lengthy liturgies certainly did not
exist in the first days ; but short formularies, at first
elastic,but gradually hardened and stereotyped,
would connect themselves with the administration of
the Sacraments in the several churches. It may be
thought strange to believe that in the Church for

which S. Luke wrote his Gospel (whether it was
Antioch on the Orontes, or any other) the cup should
have been regularly given before the bread,*^ and both
the Lord's Prayer and the words used at baptism
should have been abbreviated but on any other;
supposition I am unable to account for S. Luke's

variations. The further you can push the matter
back, the easier it is to believe in the existence of
diversity of usage and the less you are encumbered
;
with written documents, the more reasonable will

your deductions appear.
My belief in the oral hypothesis is based upon the
cumulated results of many years' study; such con-
siderations as these only strengthen it. But a theory
which is unwaveringly upheld by the Bishop of Durham
must not be lightly set aside out of deference to the
opinions of certain critics on the Continent.
It is well known to students of textual criticism
that Luke xxii. i9f-20, have been rejected by Drs.
Westcott and A
Hort as an early interpolation.
copy of S. Luke's Gospel must have reached Corinth,
or some other Pauline Church, at an early date.
What wonder if the Church authorities, finding in it
so strange an inversion of their own custom of

administering the Eucharist, should have inserted
into the margin from their liturgical formula (which
* S. Paul (i Cor. x, 15-21) supports this custom, but not in i Cor.

xi. 23-25.
was based on i Cor. xi. 25) the words which in the

common text distort the whole passage ? Their
doing so will but illustrate what I have written
about the effect of local liturgies upon the local
editions of the Gospels.
But if, as I maintain, S. Paul has borrowed from
S. Mark (with the usual variations and additions),
not S. Mark from S. Paul, how do I account for S.
Paul's language :
" For I received from the Lord that
which I also delivered unto you " ?
In the first place, it is to be noticed that the words

"receive" and "deliver" (TrapaXaêiv, TrapaSovvai) are
regularly used of tradition (Trapaôcrz?), in which a
man receives from the Lord, but through a long line
of oral teachers. (Mark vii. 4 ; John i. 1 1 ; i Cor. xv.
I, 3 ; Gal. i. 9, 12; Phil. iv. 9, etc.). And it is quite
possible that S. Paul merely meant " I derived from :
the Lord, through S. Peter and other eye-witnesses."

In the passages which Dr. Gardner produces to prove
the contrary, this particular word does not occur,
and I contend that he has too readily rejected this
interpretation.
But even if we allowed that S. Paul alleged in
these words a special supernatural revelation, we are
not bound to think that he was independent of S.
Mark. It is reasonable to suppose that, after his
Communion
first or his first administration of the
Communion to others, being impressed by the
solemnity of the occasion and with the words fresh
in his mind, he fell into a trance, or had a dream on
the following night, in which he saw heaven opened
and the Lord Jesus at the Supper- table breaking
I40 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the bread and delivering it to the apostles. The
formulae, the manual acts, the whole surroundings,
would in that case have been projected into the
vision from the earthly scene at which he had been
so recently assisting. To S. Paul's mind it would
bring confirmation of faith; and, unless we deny alto-
gether that God spake in past times in visions unto
His saints, we may allow that his belief was warranted.
But the historical fact would be the basis of the vision,
not the vision the basis of the Eucharistic service.

Dr. Gardner holds that the agapi, or love-feast, is
older than the Eucharist, and at was simply afirst
social meal partaken by the whole body of Christians

together, without any special religious ceremonies.
The Eucharist afterwards was grafted upon it. And
that when we read (Luke xxiv. 30; Acts ii. 42) of
the breaking bread, nothing more than the agap^ is
intended. To this I object, first that we have no
evidence that agapcs were ever established in the
primitive Church of Jerusalem. The Christians in
the days had no synagogues, nor houses large

first
enough for a joint festival. Nor were such feasts

known to the Jewish synagogue, whose practices
they largely followed. S. Luke's words, breaking ''
"
bread at home (Acts ii. 42), indicate a multitude of
small gatherings, not a congregational meal. When
S. Jude (12) writes ''your love feasts," he perhaps
points to the fact that love-feasts were unknown to
his own Church. Secondly, the phrase "breaking
bread the proper one to describe an
" is not, I think,
ordinary meal. an expression never found in

It is
the Old Testament, nor, I believe, in any pre-Christian

author. The cause for this is obvious. The loaves

of the ancients were flat cakes, each of which would
generally satisfy one person's appetite. To hand
round the loaves, not to break them, would be the
office of the master of the house. For to give broken
bread was a mark of poverty or slight. (Ezek. xiii.
19.) It was our Lord who introduced a new custom.
On two occasions He took some loaves of bread and

brake them into pieces to distribute to the multitudes.
At the Last Supper He took one loaf, divided it into
twelve pieces, and gave one piece to each of the
apostles. In imitation of this S. Paul says that all
the Corinthians at the Eucharist partook of one loaf,
which symbolized their unity. So completely was

this ceremony peculiar to Christ that the disciples at
Emmaus recognised Him in the breaking of bread.
Let us turn next to S. John. It is well known
that he omits all reference to the institution of the
Lord's Supper, but, nevertheless, in the sixth chapter
uses Eucharistic language, as though the Communion
had already at that early date been established. Dr.
Gardner infers from this that he did not accept S.
Paul's account, but yet elaborately expanded his
phrases. I have for some time suspected that a
simpler explanation is the true one. If we had the
synoptists alone, we should have gathered that
baptism was first instituted after the Resurrection
we learn from S. John iv. i that it had been practised
by the Twelve throughout our Lord's ministry. May
not the same thing be true of the Eucharist ? It was
solemnly administered on the night of the betrayal,
but not for the first tii;ne. It had been a covenant
of union between Christ and His disciples during
their sojourn together. Ready though I am to admit
that the discourses in S. John's Gospel have been
moulded in the apostle's mind and influenced by the
teaching of his life, I cannot allow that they are so
altogether an invention as Dr. Gardner teaches. And
if not, the language of the sixth chapter receives its
simplest solution from the suggestion which I have
made, which in itself is highly probable. Hence, too,

we understand better how Jesus was recognised in
the breaking of bread.
But, setting aside all other considerations, let us
boldly meet Dr. Gardner in his own domain of
history. At the date when the synoptic Gospels
were written (probably 70 to 80 A.D.), the celebration
of the Eucharist in Christian congregations was so
general, that in each of three Gospels the account of
its institution is given, yet in the year 52 Dr. Gardner
maintains it was unknown. Soon after that S. Paul
first started it at Corinth, then introduced it at Troas
(Acts XX. 7), and in other churches of his founding.
After that it the East and became
spread over
universal. The was established that it
belief also
dated from the Crucifixion. So much was the
genius of one man capable of accomplishing
Is not Dr. Gardner crediting S. Paul with much
greater influence than that apostle possessed during
his life, or for some time after his death ? '
We are
far from admitting, with the Tubingen school of
historical criticism, that James, and S.
S. Peter, S.
John were his enemies. But he was disliked or
deserted in many of his own churches. (Gal. iv. 16;
2 Tim. i. 15.) At Jerusalem the prejudice against

him was inveterate. (Acts xv. 5; xxi. 21.) The
Jews of the dispersion detested him. (i Thess. ii. 15;
Phil. iii. 2.) And no wonder. It is strange that the
author of the Epistle to the Galatians was able to
mix with Jews at all. If any man was compelled by
the activity of enemies to adhere strictly to the truth,
it was the great apostle of the Gentiles. He was
not able even to force his own form of institution
upon his faithful henchman, S. Luke. In spite of
his alleged revelations, the other evangelists also
adhered to their own formula. By what means was
such a man to foist a new ordinance upon the
churches and persuade them to believe that it was
primitive ? What energy and frequency of exhorta-
tion must he have used to preserve it when once
started ? Yet the fact is that in all his extant
writings, except the first epistle to the Corinthians,
he never so much as alludes to it.
Dr. Gardner thinks that S. Peter and the other
apostles, though they knew that Christ had never
said, " This is My body," nor solemnly broken bread
and given it to them, would have acquiesced in the

pious fraud, and given S. Paul that support in his
innovation, without which he could not have suc-
ceeded. Many Christians will feel a difficulty in
accepting this startling supposition, notwithstanding
the reasons which are given for it. Nor is it very
credible that the Eleusinian mysteries suggested
the Last Supper. These mysteries were celebrated
annually. The gorgeous pageant owed its attractive-
ness to its rarity. A weekly or daily fair would pall
on the taste of the gayest. But S. Paul contemplated
a more frequent repetition. " This do," the command
runs, "as often as ye drink." Strictly interpreted, the
words mean, " as often as you take ^ draught of any
kind " and
; in the Acts of the Apostles, S. Luke
apparently describes the Church days of its in the
first love as "breaking bread" at every meal, the
head of the family acting as priest in his own house,
according to the Christian idea. A looser, but in-
telligible, interpretation is, " As often as ye drink
wine!' Just when the temptation to self-indulgence
is strongest, letappetite be restrained by sacred
associations. Let the thought of Him who died
hallow your earthly enjoyments.
The resemblance between the Christian ordinance,
and both ancestor and the Eleusinian
worship
mysteries, no doubt real, but I should account for
is
it by the similarity which exists between all ancient
religious rites amongst civilised peoples. Our Lord

did not found anything absolutely new in kind. It
would be His design, we may believe, to establish
a sacrament which would be generally intelligible,
because it appealed to old ideas and inherited pre-
possessions. To eat bread or salt with a person has
been, and amongst Arabs still is, to make a sacred
bond of friendship with him. Hence in the books
of Genesis and Judges so much is made of asking
a visitor to eat bread. Hence the Psalmist sees in
violated hospitality the climax of ingratitude :
" Yea,
mine own familiar friend, whom I trusted, who did
also eat of my bread, hath laid great wait for me."
(xli. 9.) Hence, also, "every sacrifice is salted with
salt." Nor must we forget the ancient custom of

sending out portions, whether carried out on a large
scale, aswith the Spartan kings,* or on quite a small
scale in mere dainty bits, the size of which, however,
indicated the measure of your esteem. Oceanus says
to Prometheus :
OvK ecTTiv OTO) fx€Lôva ixoipav vetixaifjJ 7) (jot.t
Joseph sends messes to his brethren, " and Benjamin's

mess was five times so much as any of theirs." (Gen.
xliii. 34.) And in the same manner our Lord gave
the sop to Judas. "The blood is the life" (Gen. ix.
4), and wine an ancient surrogate for blood it is

is ;
called in Ecclesiasticus the blood of the grape." J *'
To make blood-brotherhood is a common custom

still with African tribes. "Whoso eateth My flesh
and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me and I in him "
(John vi. 56) is not borrowed from Hellenic thought,
but from the common ideas of primitive man. I
believe that this covenant of union was made between

Christ and the Twelve frequently during His earthly
sojourn. I believe that, as in the feeding of the five
thousand, it was to some extent offered occasionally
to a larger circle. I believe that it was solemnly
repeated on the night of the betrayal, and that S.
Luke is right in representing it as practised in the
days of the Church. For long examination
earliest
has convinced me that the opening chapters of the
Acts of the Apostles are based upon ancient (pro-
bably oral) records. And surely if so strange, so
* HdT. vi. 57. + yESCHYLUS, P. V., 29I.
X Prof. W. R. Smith, The Religion of the Semites^ p. 213.
L
simple a ceremony was started from the first and
never discontinued, there no difficulty about it.

is
But if it was neglected for upwards of twenty years,

we fail to imagine a power which within the next
twenty years could have made it practically universal.
We freely admit, or, rather, have long insisted, that
the words, " Do this in remembrance of Me," stand
on a lower level in point of historical attestation
than the words, " This is My body." They are not
guaranteed by S. Peter, but come to us only on the
authority of S. Paul. But we are very far indeed
from casting suspicion on all our Lord's reputed
deeds and words which S. Peter has not recorded.
Other persons who were present at the Last Supper
had memories besides the cojyphcEus of apostles. In
spite of all that Dr. Gardner has urged, we think it
simplest to believe that at the Last Supper Christ
Himself used both these sentences, although in the
churches, which depended for their information on
S. Peter, only one of them was preserved.
POSTSCRIPT
In Isaiah Iviii. 7,
" Deal thy bread to the hungry " may
be literally translated, "Break thy bread," etc.; but this
would only be the exception to prove the rule. In the
case of starving beggars it is proper to give broken meat,
but no one might do so in ordinary social life.
XIV.
ON THE DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION
has been noticed from very early times that

ITthere are difficulties about the date of the
crucifixion of our Lord. Did it take place (i) in
the forenoon or the afternoon? (2) On Thursday
or Friday? (3) On the fourteenth day of the month
Nisan, or the fifteenth? (4) In the year 29 A.D.,
or any other year between 27 and 35 ? We propose
to consider these four questions in the four chapters
of this paper.
Our principal authorities are ultimately, as I
believe, S. Peter and S. John. S. Peter's account

is found in S. Mark's Gospel, and is followed by
S. Matthew and S. Luke. S. John's is peculiar to
the fourth Gospel. But there are other authorities
to be considered, as we shall see presently.
Let us begin with the difficulty about the hour.
S. Peter says :
" It was the
hour, and they third
crucifiedHim."* "And when the sixth hour had
come there was darkness over the whole land until
the ninth hour. And at the ninth hour Jesus cried
• Mark xv. 25.
147
with a loud voice . . . and yielded up His life."*
S. John says :
" They bring, therefore, Jesus from
Caiaphas to the praetorium, and it was early." t
Again, at the close of the trial, just before sentence
was passed, we read " And it was the preparation
:
of the passover ; the hour was about the sixth." J

In the ancient world hours were not a uniform
period of sixty minutes, but one-twelfth of the space
between sunrise and sunset, so that it could always
be said, Are there not twelve hours in the day ? " §
*'
In Palestine the hours in winter might, therefore,

be as short as fifty minutes in summer, as long ;
as seventy ; but at the passover (March-April),

the time of the year when our Lord was crucified,
the hours would average sixty minutes, and the sun
would rise and set about six o'clock. The last hour
is not called *'the twelfth," but "the late hour"
Ancient sun-dials were necessarily different from

ours. The hours were traced on the section of a
sphere scooped out of a block of stone, and the
gnomon was placed horizontally at the top. The
only fixed hour was noon. If you consult a standard
work on the subject, like Smith's Dictionary of
Antiquities, you will find the statement that noon
was the seventh hour. But this is an error. Noon
was the sixth hour for sunrise was called irpma^
;
" the early (hour)." The first hour " was when the ''
sun had been shining for an hour, just as with us

"one o'clock" is an hour after noon or midnight.
* Mark xv. 33, 34 = Matt, xxvii. 45, 46 = Luke xxiii. 44.
t John xviii, 28. J John xix. 14. § John xi. 9.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION 149
Anyone may see this in the parable of the dis-

contented labourers,"^ in which the master went
forth to hire workmen at early morning, at the
third hour, the sixth, the ninth, and the eleventh,
paying wages at sunset, at which time those who
had been hired at the eleventh hour had worked
one hour, and not two, as the other hypothesis would
require.
According to S. Peter, then, Christ was crucified
at 9 a.m., the agony upon the cross lasted six hours,
the darkness began at noon and lasted till 3 p.m.
At 3 p.m. Christ yielded up His life. But according
to S. John, sentence was passed about noon, and
as some time would be required for preparation,
the crucifixion began in the afternoon. In short,
there is a discrepancy of more than three hours.
Here is work for the harmonist. And that in-
genious person's versatility does not forsake him.
Consult almost any commentary that you please,
from the Bishop of Durham's to a Sunday-school
treatise, and you will find it stated with more or
less of positive assertion that the ancient world
had two ways of reckoning the hours one from :
sunrise to sunset, which the synoptists have followed ;
the other, like our own plan, from midnight to mid-

day, which S. John has followed. The latter plan
is also called the Roman. It is said to have been
in use at Ephesus, where
S. John wrote. Martyr-
ologies quoted to prove this.
are And so when
S. John says "the hour was about the sixth," he
means 6 a.m., and all discrepancy vanishes.
* Matt. XX. 1-16,
ISO NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
There are three objections to this attractive ex-
planation. First, it was unknown to the ancient fathers.
Irenaeus was a native of Asia Minor, so were Poly-
carp and Papias. Through them so simple a solution
of the difficulty would have passed into the Church
if there had been any ground for it. But though
all kinds of reasons are given, from the symbolical
meaning of the number six in Irenaeus, to the ful-

filment of Daniel in Hippolytus, and the interval
which must have lapsed between passing sentence
and nailing to the cross in Hesychius,* no one
suggests a different reckoning of hours.
Secondly, we should only escape one difficulty
by creating another. Christ was brought before
Pilate "early." The phrase is an elastic one, as
we shall see hereafter. But it is fixed here. Before

He was taken to the praetorium our Lord had been
brought before the Sanhedrin in their chamber gazith
on the temple mount ''when the early (hour) had
come."f True, there had been two examinations
—
the night before one before Annas, which was
merely to pass the time, the other before Caiaphas,
in which some energetic committees of the Sanhedrin
had, in the formal arnKpicri^, procured sufficient
material for condemnation ; but for all that, the trial
before the Sanhedrin proper must be gone through.

According to the Talmud, the meeting to try capital
cases must be held by daylight. And although
Talmudic rules belong to a later date, common sense
* Unfortunately S. John gives the time of passing sentence,

S. Mark that of nailing to the cross,
t Matt, xxvii. i.
as well as S. Matthew's language forbid us to think

of the assembling of the Sanhedrists much before
6 a.m.
At any rate, Christ could not have reached Pilate
before that hour. And if so, the discussion before the
procurator began at 6 a.m., orlater, and ended about
6 a.m. Yet there is abundant evidence that it was a

long one. S. John takes a large part of two chapters
to describe it. S. Matthew gives many details which
would lengthen it. S. Luke adds that it was inter-
rupted by a visit to Herod, which can hardly have
taken less than an hour. From two hours and a
half to three hours appears to me to be the mini-
mum time required.
But in the third place, this double reckoning of
the hours is in itself a very suspicious thing. Cer-
tainly it is possible. In Italy twenty-four hours
used to be counted on the clock, so that you dined
at nineteen and went to bed at twenty-three, and
some reformers wish to restore this way of reckoning
now. But railways and through trains compelled
the Italians to conform to the use of their neighbours,
and it is not easy to go back.
In the ancient world, with no telegraphs or railways,
and only slow communication by sailing ships, there
would be less need for uniformity. Still, the Rev.
J. A. Cross* has called in question this supposed
second method of reckoning the hours, and Pro-
fessor W. M. Ramsay declares that it is " a mere
fiction, constructed as a refuge of despairing harmo-
nisers, and not a jot of evidence for it has ever been
* Classical Review, June, 1 891.
given that would bear scrutiny."* He himself cuts
the Gordian knot in heroic fashion by declaring with
Professor Godet that the apostles had no watches.
"About the sixth hour" with them would signify
anywhere between ii and i. If the crucifixion
really took place at half-past ten, S. Peter might
call it the third hour and S. John the sixth without
admitting greater inaccuracy than we should feel
between 12.5 and 12.10, or than an astronomer would
feel about tenths of a second. All is a matter of
habit and education.
This is fascinating, and to a great extent true.
Divisions of time are rough and few amongst
primitive people. Day and night come first, in
which the day includes all the twilight; the night
is darkness. Then for military purposes the night
is divided into three watches, t The officer on duty
decides by the position of the stars when the watch
is over. On cloudy nights he guesses, for water-
clocks and sand-glasses are a later invention. The
day is divided into morning, noon, and evening.
Then "the heat of the day "J (11 a.m. to 2 p.m.),
when food is taken and a siesta, the "time of the
evening meal-offering " § (3 p.m.), the "verge of the
evening "11 (5 p.m.), when supper is made ready
these with sunrise and sunset complete the divisions.
"Steps" in the sun-dial of Ahaz were introduced
by that savant from Damascus to Jerusalem, but
scarcely affected popular language, which was con-
tent with the above-mentioned simple indications
* Expositor, March, 1893. f Judges vii. 19.
X Gen. xviii. i. § i Kings xviii. 29.
IIGen. iii. 8.
until the heathenish Greeks invaded the Holy Land

and polluted it with their abominations. Then
for the first time do we read of the ''hour,"* which,
nevertheless, in the days of Christ had thrown out
the old reckoning. The night, also, was now divided
into four watches instead of three, t it was, however,
occasionally divided into hours.
But even astrology had not broken up the hour
into minutes. Astrologers were satisfied with cal-
culating horosco^Qs. S. Augustine has no notion
that twins might have a different horoscope. X People
said " I will come in the course of an hour," where
:
our forefathers said, " in a minute," we, **

in a second,"
and our children or grandchildren will say, "in the
tenth of a second."
Professor Ramsay holds that plain people were
perplexed by these minute subdivisions of time, and
did not use them. They talked of " the early (hour),"
the third, sixth, ninth hours, and "the late (hour),"
but neglected the others.
Let us examine the evidence of the New Testa-
ment on this interesting question.
There are two adverbs in very common use,
" early " and " late " {irpm and o\ê), and two adjec-
tives, derived from them, "the early (hour)," Trpcota,
o o'clock or sunrise, and "the late (hour)," 6\j/-ia,
12 o'clock or sunset. S-^la entirely supplants the

twelfth hour.
Now we must first observe that the adverbs are
* Daniel iii. 6; iv. i6 (the time indicated is still vague as in iopa
originally).
t Mark xiii. 35. X D^ civiiate, 2, 6.

used in a double sense, according as they apply to
the night or the day. The first watch of the night
"
was called " late " (oVê), and the last watch " early
(TTpw"/"), because they contained the period of twilight.

But in common use, unless the context decides
"
otherwise, we may be sure that " early " and " late
do not mean the watches of the night, but are said

with reference to the day. Early " means anything
*'
between the first streak of dawn (or, indeed, long

before that) and seven or eight o'clock in the
morning. " Late " means from five or six till mid-
night or beyond. For as it is now, so was it then.
" I sat up very late last night " may mean till 4 a.m.
" I got up very early this morning " may mean at
3 a.m., or toan Alpine club man i a.m. And so the
terms overlap. For, although the day legally ended
when darkness was established and three stars
were visible, popular language necessarily disre-
garded legal absurdities. "To-morrow"* in the
Bible always means after the night's sleep is over.
"Yesterday" is divided from to-day by the night.
And S. Matthew writes, quite naturally as we may
do, " Late on Saturday night, as it was dawning
for Sunday,"! to signify 4.30 a.m., or somewhere
thereabouts, on Sunday morning.
But the adjectives, the " early (hour) " and " the late
(hour) " are not quite identical in meaning with the
adverbs. Being hours, they do not intrude on the
night, probably never extending into real darkness.
On the other hand, they trespass much further into
the day. "The early (hour)" probably lasted, in
* Acts iv. 3. t Matt, xxviii. i.
popular language, nearly 9 a.m. "the late (hour)"

till ;
certainly was often reckoned from 3 p.m.*

All this proves that the word " hour," in its popular
use, retained its original meaning of an indefinite
division of time, as distinguished from the strict
meaning of one-twelfth of the day, which science

was fastening upon it.
But I cannot persuade myself that a serious
historian, who gave dates by the hour at all, would
follow the carelessness of country people. S. John,
as a matter of fact, mentions the seventh! hour and

the tenth, t S. Matthew the eleventh, § a Western
reading in Acts xix. 10 the fifth and the tenth. So
far were the New
Testament writers from being tied
to the third, sixth, and ninth. S. Luke speaks of an
interval of about an hour,|| and about three hours,1I
and S. Mark, ''Could ye not watch with Me one

hour?"**
These objections are serious ; the following, I
submit, is fatal. Of all divisions of the day none

is so well marked as the dinner -hour. Even in
modern life "morning" popularly means the period
before dinner, " afternoon " the period after dinner.
In the New Testament we have indications of two
substantial meals in the day and one slight refection.
Breakfast, as we should call it, is alluded to in
Acts XX. 11; dinner in Matt. xxii. 4, Luke xi. 37,
38 xiv. 12, John xxi. 12, Acts x. 10; supper in
* Matt. xiv. 15, 23. t John i. 40.

t John iv. 52. § Matt. xx. 6, 9.
II
Luke xxii. 59. IF Acts v. 7.
* • Mark xiv. 37.
the " Lord's supper," and in many other passages.
In Acts X. 10 the dinner-hour is the sixth ( = noon),
and although the time doubtless fluctuated a little
in various grades of society, we can hardly be wrong
in saying that for working-men it would not fall later
than midday. The apostles had no watches, but men
who have lived without watches in the backwoods in-
form me that they could tell the dinner-hour to within
ten minutes, and I feel sure that most of us with a
little practice could do the same. The sixth hour,
therefore, being either the dinner-hour or falling, in
popular phrase, into the afternoon, would never, I
maintain, be put loosely for 10.30 a.m., and although
Professor Ramsay has done good service, I cannot
accept his explanation in this particular.
I incline myself to the old view of a false reading,
either in S. Mark
more probably, in S. John.
or,
Eusebius suggests it in the latter, S. Jerome in the
former. In manuscripts, except those of the most
expensive kind, numerals were expressed for brevity's
sake by letters of the alphabet, as we express them
by figures. *' Third " would be written with a
gamma (F), " sixth " with a digavima (F). And
these two letters were so very much alike that they
were peculiarly liable to be confused. Perhaps
S. John really wrote or intended to write " third " (P),
but a primitive copyist read " sixth " (F).
In the expensive Constantine MSS. and their

derivatives numerals are written out at full length,
but in the Cambridge Codex Bezcs (D) letters of
the alphabet are generally used ; and that this was
the ancient practice, and that it led to confusion
from the similarity of the diganima to other letters

is proved by Acts xxvii. 37, where the true reading
is, "We were in all on board the ship about
seventy-six souls," though the common text has,
"We were in all on board the ship two hundred
and seventy-six souls." Now C stands for two
hundred, o for seventy, and F for six. The ori-
ginal text ran, eMTUUTTAOItUCUCOF* But the
second co having been accidentally or purposely
omitted, the words became ^HTUJTTAOiUjCOF'*
The British Museum manuscript (A) gives another
reading, C WTWTTAOl W CÊ ,
"two hundred
and seventy-five," the digamma (F) having been
altered into epsilon (E).
At any rate, our general conclusion is that the
common explanation of two methods of calculating
hours must be abandoned. It is legitimate for any-
one to admit that S. Mark differs from S. John,

and that, having acknowledged this discrepancy,
it is not our province to seek for explanations which
cannot now be obtained with any certainty. It is

not legitimate, I maintain, to assert any longer that
there were two ways of reckoning hours. The
controversy has been unnecessarily confused by
introducing into it the question of the point in the
twenty-four hours at which the day legally begins.
But that is an entirely separate matter. The Roman
day, like our own, legally began at midnight, the
Jewish day at sunset but the Romans reckoned
;
the hours from sunrise, exactly as did the Jews,

the Greeks, and the rest of the civilized world. At
the University of Cambridge the year begins on
October ist, the week on Friday, the day at noon; but
these local peculiarities do not affect popular speech.
If S. John had known that his Ephesian readers
reckoned the hours from midnight he could not have
recorded without comment the saying of our Lord,
"Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any
man walk in the day he stumbleth not," for the
longest day would have contained 14 hours 38 min-
and the shortest day 9 hours 22 minutes.
utes,
That S. Mark is right, and that the crucifixion
really took place in the forenoon, is rendered
probable by two further considerations. First, time
was needed to make this lingering torture fatal.
It was no uncommon case for criminals to expire
at length from mere hunger on the cross.* Besides
the breaking of the legs, various other methods were
used to accelerate death. They were suffocated by
the smoke of fires lighted below, or were torn in
pieces by wild beasts. Now Pilate, who was re-
quired by the Romans to respect Jewish law, knew
that the bodies could not remain suspended beyond
sunset on any day,t much less on a Friday. He
would, therefore, be anxious to secure as long a time
as possible for the law to take vengeance. Secondly,
the scene plainly consisted of two parts, the first of
which was characterized by gibes, merriment, and
triumph, the next by dread, silence, and misgivings.
The darkness will account for the change. Three
hours of brutal enjoyment were succeeded by three
of superstitious terror, For the wicked are super-
* Trench, Studies in the Gospels, p. 313.
t Deut. xxi. 23.

stitious beyond the understanding of good men, and

nature seemed, with its heavy storm-clouds at mid-
day, to be conspiring against them. We need not

beHeve that they carried lanterns about, as the
unimaginative author of the recently - discovered
"Gospel according to S. Peter" supposed. But
they confessed, " Truly this Man was a Son of God,"
they smote their breasts, and returned, saddened and
solemnised, to their homes.
n.
Was Christ crucified on a Friday or a Thursday }
Let us first look at our authorities. S. Peter's

account is, was Preparation, which is the
" For it
day before a Sabbath." * S. John's, " For it was Pre-

paration " and again, " It was Preparation of the
;
passover." f With this S. Luke agrees, " And it was

a day of Preparation, and a Sabbath was approach-
ing." J S. Matthew also describes the next day thus,
" On the morrow, which is after the Preparation."
§
According to the common and, I believe, unques-
tionably true view " Preparation " is the Jewish
name for Friday, as preparation was on that day
made for the coming Sabbath. But the Bishop
of Durham (Dr. Westcott) holds that in this particu-
lar case it means Thursday, ||
the next day, Friday,
being the great festival of the "first day of un-
leavened bread, on which the paschal lamb was
killed." Special preparations would have to be
* Mark xv. 42. t John xix. 31, 14.
X Luke xxiii. 54. § Matt, xxvii. 62.

II
Introduction to the Sttidy of the Gospels^ chap. 6, note.
i6o NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
made for that day by killing the lamb and searching
for leaven with a view to the complete destruction
of every particle of it, and this preparation on
Thursday would take the place of the ordinary
preparation on Friday.
Let us see what arguments can be brought to
support this view.
It is stated that the term " Sabbath " need not
always mean the seventh day of the week. The
great day of atonement is called a " Sabbath of
rest," * and the Jews were ordered to rest on some
of the greater festivals ; notably on the first day of

unleavened bread "no manner of work might be
done save that which every man must eat." f Now if
the first day of unleavened bread was itself a Sabbath,
it would necessarily be preceded by a Preparation.

S. Luke's language, " It was a day of Preparation,
and a Sabbath was approaching," but still more
S. John's, which may fairly be translated, It was '*
Preparation for the passover," are held to indicate

that the ordinary Preparation is not meant, but the
special Preparation for the passover. This indication

is strengthened by S. John's further observation,
" For the day of that Sabbath was great." % Why
should he have said this if the weekly Sabbath was
intended ?
Again,S. Matthew's circumlocution, ''On the

morrow, which is after the Preparation," is difficult
to account for except on the supposition that he was
going to write, "Which was the first day of unleavened
* Lev. xxiii. 32. t Exodus xii. 16,
X John xix. 31.

DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION i6i
bread," but, recollecting that he had already * used

that term in a popular f or Galilean sense (it is
supposed) to describe the day before, felt precluded

from using it in its proper Pentateuchal sense now.
Had an ordinary Sabbath followed, he would have
On the morrow, which was the Sabbath."
written, "
Again, there are numerical calculations which are
claimed distinctly to favour Thursday. S. Mark,
following S. Peter, writes, "The Son of Man must
.... rise and again, " After
again after three days'' ;
three days He shall rise again." J But the strongest

passage of all is found in S. Matthew, "As Jonah was
three days and three nights in the sea monster's
belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth." § If other
passages are neutral or only slightly favour the
longer period, this, it is claimed, demands it. One
day and fractions of two nights cannot be extended
into three days and three nights. The crucifixion,
therefore,must have taken place on a Thursday.
Now I have shown elsewhere, that there are I|
strong reasons for holding that the verse which

speaks of the Son of Man being three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth, though put
into our Lord's mouth, was not really uttered by
Him, but is one of those later accretions which
* Matt. xxvi. 17.
t According to the law of Moses there were only seven days of

unleavened bread ; in the New Testament there are eight, one day
having been added at the beginning, thus disturbing the reckoning. It
ismost probable that this had been done by the scribes in their zeal to
"set a hedge about the law." Cf. page 170.
X Mark viii. 31 ; ix. 31. § Matthew xii. 40.
II
The Composition of the Four Gospels, Macmillan.
M
gathered round the primitive Petrine Gospel during
its oral stage. I have shown that a group of thirteen
or fourteen of these accretions is concerned with the

fulfilment of Scripture by Christ as the Messiah ; that
this group is peculiar to the first Gospel ; that it was
due to the Aramaic preachers or catechists, for
the quotations never follow the Septuagint version
as the rest of the Gospel quotations do ; and that
there was often much straining of evidence to make
these fulfilments good. Sometimes the words of the
prophet are altered in what we should consider
important respects, sometimes S. Peter's Memoirs
are altered, to obtain the desired result. All this
is undeniable and highly suggestive. It shows
that Jewish Christians, educated in Rabbinic methods
of exegesis, regarded these distortions as legitimate.
Such a trifle as adding a third night to the recog-
nised three days would not appear to them worthy
of account*
Does anyone think this novel and startling? Let
him read what the learned Dr. Lightfoot wrote in his
Horce Hebraicce, published A.D. 1644. Briefly it
amounts to this : There is in Aramaic a word *ondh

of doubtful meaning. The following definitions of
it are given in the Talmud: (i)"How much is the
space of an 'ondh ? *
R. Jochanan says, either a day
or a night.' *
R. Akiba fixed a day for an *dndh and
a night for an *ondh* But the tradition is that
R. Eliezer Ben Azariah said, *A day and a night
* If S. Matthew's Gospel was finally written in Alexandria, where
the exact date of the crucifixion might well be obscured, we shall
better understand the change.
make an * ondh and a part of an ^ ondh is as the

whole.' It is said of a period of three days, '
R.
Ismael Sometimes it contains four onoth,
saith, '
sometimes five, sometimes six.'"

Now if the Aramaic catechists said, "As Jonah was
three *dndth in the sea monster's belly, so shall the
Son of Man be three onoth in the heart of the earth,"
'
all inconsistency with the common date of the

Resurrection would disappear and yet the Greek ;
catechists who moulded our "Gospel according to

S. Matthew" would, from their knowledge of the Sep-
tuagint, naturally translate it in both cases "three
days and three nights," though S. Paul uses a word,
w^nfxepovy which might have served their purpose
better.
I do not give I do
this as the true explanation.
not think it isBut Lightfoot's authority may
so.
help to remove some prejudices.*

It is to be noticed that S. Mark's "After three
days I shall rise again," is usually altered in the
other Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and S. Paul
into, " On the third day." And in course of time this
change reacted on the text of S. Mark. In the
Syrian recension, which the English Authorised
Version follows, "On the third day" is found in
S. Mark also. Now to our ideas a man speaking
on Friday of an event which is to happen on
Sunday, might describe it as about to happen " on
* S.Mark omits ** Jonah" altogether, following S. Peter's Memoirs,
S. Luke gives the explanation contained in the logia. S. Matthew gives
the explanation contained in the logiay modified to fulfil Scripture the
better. Unquestionably S. Luke's explanation is more original than
S. Matthew's.
the third day," but not " after three days." We must
not, however, intrude our mathematical prejudices
into ancient thought, for there exists a passage
which proves decisively that the evangelists saw
no distinction between these two phrases. " Sir,"
writes S. Matthew, " we remember that that Impostor
said, while He was yet alive, After three days I will rise
again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be
made sure U7itil the third day!' *
It is not, I think, impossible that the Jewish care-
lessness numbers was partly due to the
about
symbolic meaning which they attached to certain
numbers. Three, four, seven, ten, and multiples
of these figures, occur in the Bible far oftener than
they would do if there were no symbolism to be
sought. " Forty " probably signifies one generation
of human life, otherwise its frequent occurrence in
the Bible is hard to account for. The number three
is exceptionally suitable here to one who symbolizes.
But I certainly do not think that if no symbolic
meaning had been sought " two " would have taken
its place. The difficulty is deeper.
In fact, we have to deal with the curious custom
of inclusive reckoning. It appears to me that
inclusive reckoning was the inveterate habit of the
vulgar, but that the lawyers in legal documents,
where ambiguity would be fatal, avoided it. Hence
in the Pentateuch numbers are used as we use them.
" Seven days of unleavened bread," for example, are
calculated from " the fourteenth day of the month at

even until the twenty-first day of the month at
* Matt, xxvii. 63.
even."* Assyrian cuneiform inscriptions, I am told

by my colleague, the Rev. C. H. W. Johns, exhibit
both uses : in legal documents exclusive reckon-
ing prevails, but in ordinary life great confusion
and ambiguity exists from the preference for in-
clusive figures. How inveterate the error was is
shown by the Roman method of calculating the days

of the month. They reckoned backwards and always
inclusively. Thus the last day of April, for example,
was called the day before the Kalends of May, and
the last day but one the third day before the Kalends
of May, though it surely ought to be called the
second. The same with the nones and the ides.
Even older than this was the weekly market. It was
held every eighth day, but was called nundinae, " the
ninth day," instead of "the eighth." Anyone may
see by consulting a concordance that the common
Biblical expression, " On the third day," signifies,
"the day after to-morrow." Our Lord used it thus

in the verse, " cast out demons, and accom-
Behold, I
plish healings to-day and to-morrow, and the third

day I am perfected." The Hebraist knows that
"heretofore" is expressed by two nouns, "yesterday
and the day before," literally "yesterday and the
third day." In Latin nudius tertius^ " it is now the
third day," means " the day before yesterday."
On the whole, I submit that the argument from
arithmetic is decidedly in favour of Friday.
Again, although in deciding between Thursday
and FridayS. Luke, especially as his evidence is only
given in an " editorial note," cannot be put on a level
* Exodus xii. iS.
with eye-witnesses like S. Peter and S. John, yet at
least he may be used to show what was the belief of
the Western Church, which on so interesting a ques-
tion can hardly have been mistaken. After describing
our Lord's burial, S. Luke says that the women
" rested theSabbath day according to the command-
ment, and on the first day of the week"* came the
Resurrection. Plainly he regards Friday as the day
of burial and therefore of crucifixion, Saturday as the
Sabbath, and Sunday as the Resurrection day. It is
an intolerable straining of his words to suppose that
by " the Sabbath " he meant forty-eight hours, two
" Sabbaths" coming consecutively. Such an interpre-
tation is the fruit of sheer desperation.

But I fail to find any authority for the supposition
that the Jews in the time of Christ would have
applied the name " Sabbath," without some qualifica-
tion, to any festival except the seventh day, or
"Preparation" to any day but Friday. In the Old
Testament the Sabbath is not often mentioned,
hardly so often as it is in the Gospels and the Acts
of the Apostles. But under the Rabbis the sanctity
of the day had been made a chief article of faith.
The Maccabean patriots had allowed themselves
to be cut down to a man sooner than defend them-
selves on the Sabbath. The Talmudic rules for
Sabbath observance form a life study in themselves.
There is not a trace in the New Testament of sharing
the honour of the day with any other festival how-
ever great. Modern Jews draw a distinction between
Sabbaths and festivals, much as churchmen do
* Luke xxiii, 56.
between Sundays and holy days. The very phrase

"twice a week," "first day of the week," where
" week " is " literally " Sabbath," shows how fixed
the language had become.
When John wrote, **For the day of that Sabbath
S.
was I believe he simply meant to remind his
great,"
Gentile readers how sacred a day the Sabbath was in
the eyes of the Jew. For if it be true that S. John,
when he wrote in Greek, thought in Aramaic (and I
hold that the structure of his sentences proves this)
he would not feel any difference between the expres-
sions, "The day of that Sabbath" and "That Sabbath
day." Still, I am ready to admit that if (as is practi-
cally certain) the Sabbath on this particular year
coincided with the festival, such a Sabbath would
be superior to ordinary Sabbaths, much as Easter
day with churchmen is superior to an ordinary
Sunday. *
S. John's expression, " It was Preparation of the
passover," will therefore mean, "It was passover
Friday," by which phrase I do not mean the seventh
day of unleavened bread, for, though that also
on this occasion would be a Friday, it was too far
removed from the slaying of the paschal lamb to
be so designated. "Passover Friday" will be the
day on the afternoon of which the paschal lamb was
slain, and in the night of which, according to popular
language, it was eaten.

The ancient Christians uniformly held that Friday
was the day of Christ's death. Modern Greeks still
call Friday " Preparation." There seems to be no

* See Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers^ i. 1690.
break in the chain of evidence, and I feel very
confident that all the arguments to the contrary are
unavailing.
III.
Did the crucifixion take place on the fourteenth

day of the month Nisan or on the fifteenth ?
Nisan (or Abib, as it was called in olden time) was
the first month of the Jewish year, and corresponded
roughly to our March-April. We cannot fix it more
precisely, for in the first place the months were lunar,
and were therefore continually varying with respect
to the year ;in the next place they were settled by
observation merely. If some ripe ears of barley
could be found as the new moon was expected, the
new year was declared to have begun if not, a ;
month was intercalated. In critical cases therefore

a late or early spring might just make the difference.
Similarly, if the moon's thin crescent was visible on
the expected night, the ensuing day was proclaimed
holy as the first day of the month if not, even
;
though the moon's absence was caused by clouds or

rain, a day was intercalated, but of course only one.
By these simple expedients, the calendar was kept
fairly accurate without any of those elaborate calcu-
lations by which Julius Caesar put the matter on its
present basis. Modern precision, however, was never
thought of. The year did not begin on the right
day, but on the nearest new moon to the right day,
or one month later the month did not begin at the
;
true new moon, but when the moon was first visible,
which would be a day and a half or two days later.
The day itself did not begin at sunset, but when
from one to three stars were visible. Everything

was vague and empirical.
It is impossible, therefore, for us now to recover
an ancient Jewish date with any certainty. We
cannot be sure to a day, sometimes not to a month.
It is however probable that already in the time of
Christ contact with Greek civilization had introduced
some more systematic methods of calculation.
The Jews were not seriously inconvenienced by
the uncertainty of the calendar. Those who lived
in the Holy Land received a fortnight's notice of the
passover's approach, ten days' notice of the time for
selecting the paschal lamb. If therefore they in-
tended to keep the feast in Jerusalem, there was
ample time for preparation. The Jews of the dis-
persion came to pentecost rather than to passover.
On the fourteenth day of Nisan the paschal lamb
was slain " "
between the evenings (3-5 P.M. accord-
ing to Josephus), and was eaten the same night. In
legal language (as the day legally began at sunset)
it was eaten on the fifteenth, but in popular language
it was eaten on the night of the fourteenth. To pre-
vent misconception adhere to popular language
I shall
throughout the rest of this paper, and reckon the
days, as we do, from midnight to midnight.
Next day, the fifteenth, was the first day of un-
leavened bread, one of the greatest festivals in the
it commemorated the deliverance from Egypt.
year, for
Josephus, however, tells us that in the time of Christ
the fourteenth wascommonly called the first day
of unleavened bread, and we find it so styled in
the Gospels. We must not suppose that the great
I/O NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
festival had been shifted : that was certainly not
the case but the Rabbis in their endeavour " to set
;
a hedge about the law" had required all leaven to

be destroyed one day sooner than the law directed,
and so there were practically eight days of un-
leavened bread now. The numbering therefore was
altered, the festivals being on the second and the
eighth instead of the first and the seventh.
The question is, Did Christ assemble His disciples

to eat the passover on the evening of the fourteenth
or was He at that time already resting in the grave,
the last conflict being over? Strange to say this
question has been long debated. Various makeshift
answers have been given. But with the increasing
sense of honesty which marks our age, some of the
best scholars have dared to say, " I do not know."
Let us first read S. Mark's testimony: "Now
after two days was the passover and the feast of
unleavened bread. And on the first day of un-
. . .
leavened bread when (the Jews) used to sacrifice

the passover, the disciples say unto Him, Where wilt
Thou that we go and prepare that Thou mayest eat
the passover ? . . . Say ye to the master of the house.
The Teacher saith. Where isMy lodging where I
must eat the passover with My disciples? . , . And

they prepared the passover."
S. Matthew and S. Luke fully confirm this. The
latter adds that Jesus said, " I have earnestly desired
to eat this passover with you before I suffer."
If we had the synoptists alone, no one would
doubt that Jesus ate the passover the night before
the crucifixion, and that He was therefore crucified
on the fifteenth.
But now let us look at S. John.

^'Before''' (not "at") "the feast of the passover
Jesus" partook of the last supper, (xiii. i.) During
the meal Judas went out, and the cause of his
departure being secret, some supposed, since Judas
held the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what
"
we need for the feast." (xiii. 29.) They were not

therefore already the feast, but were
concluding
looking forward to it. "
Judas went out, and it was
night." Yet the shops were not shut, as they would
have been on the night of the fourteenth, for legally
next day's festival would have begun on which no
work was allowed. Next morning S. John tells us
that the chief priests "themselves entered not into
the praetorium, that they might not be defiled ; but
might eat the passover." (xviii. 28.) They had not,
therefore, eaten the passover the night before, but
looked forward to doing so that night. " And it was
the preparation of the passover " when they crucified
Him. (xix. 14.) "The Jews, therefore, since it was
preparation, that the bodies might not remain on
the cross upon the Sabbath" . . . applied to Pilate
that they might be taken down. (xix. 31.) We have
seen that the preparation almost certainly means
Friday, in which case these verses do not affect the
question. They count neither way. Still we have
a singularly long list of dates, some of which seem
to demand the fourteenth, all permit of it. If we
read S. John's Gospel alone, no one would doubt
that our Lord was crucified on the fourteenth, and
therefore did not partake of the passover.
Exceedingly early tradition favours the fourteenth,
for the Quartodecimans, who kept Good Friday on
the fourteenth of Nisan, date from Polycarp, who
claimed to follow the practice of S. John.
Let us first glance at some of the solutions which
have been offered of this difficult problem at various
times.
I. Eusebius suggested and S. Chrysostom developed
the idea, which has been very generally held, that
the chief priests had been so busily employed in
compassing Christ's arrest and conducting His trial,
that they had found no time to eat the passover on

the proper night, but had put off the duty of doing
so till the fifteenth.
But Christ's arrest appears to have taken place
after midnight. The passover was eaten when the
sun had set. The chief priests were rigid legalists,
and would have abundance of time for celebrating
the most solemn of their ordinances. Moreover,
this supposition leaves two out of S. John's three
statements unexplained, i.e. it totally fails.
2. The majority, therefore, of modern interpreters

have inclined rather to the view that Christ Himself
anticipated the passover, eating it one day sooner
than usual because He knew that His hour was
come, and because He "earnestly desired to eat it
with them before He suffered."
But S. Mark distinctly writes that it was the
disciples who suggested to Him that the time for
eating the passover had come, and that they did so
"on the first day of unleavened bread when (the
Jews) sacrificed the passover." Nothing can be
clearer than this. The usual day, the usual hour.
was come. They fancied that He had overlooked

it, and they call attention to the necessity of making
preparations for the universal religious duty.

Moreover, although the law directed every master
of a house to kill the paschal lamb himself, no
restrictionabout place being given, the later centrali-
sation required that the lamb must be slain in the
temple. The Jews of the dispersion could not eat
the passover except when they went up perhaps —
once in their lives —to
the Holy City. Now the
priests would have refused to sacrifice the lamb a
day before the usual time. And the advocates of
thisview are obliged to maintain that no lamb was
obtained. They point out that in the narrative of
the last supper neither lamb nor bitter herbs are
mentioned. There seems to have been nothing on
the table but bread, wine, and one bowl containing
fish or salad or other condiment. It was (as S. John
describes it) an ordinary supper. This difficulty we
shall consider presently.Meanwhile S. Mark's words,
" Prepare that Thou mayest eat the passover," and
" They made ready the passover," must surely mean
the paschal lamb.
Rabbinic students have suggested an entirely
3.
new explanation which in recent times has gained

wide acceptance. They contend that by " eating the
passover" S. John meant something quite different
from what S. Mark meant by the same expression.
S. Mark plainly intended the paschal lamb, but S.
John meal which is not mentioned
refers to a festal
in thePentateuch but was prescribed by the tradition
of the elders. Commonly called the Chdgzgdh, it
could be eaten on any of the seven days of the feast,
but was usually taken on the second —the old "first"

— day. It was considered of equal or even greater
importance than the paschal lamb, and the term,

"eating the passover," included it or sometimes
alluded to it alone. In S. John, they argue, the
expression "eat the passover" must refer to the
Chagigdh, for if the chief priests had defiled them-
selvesby entering the praetorium, such lesser defile-
ment, caused by the presence of Roman eagles and
other idolatrous possibly also of leavened
signs,
bread, would always be removed by washing the
body at sunset. There was nothing after such purifi-
cation to prevent them from eating the passover.
The feeling against idolatry and idolaters was
particularly strong in that age, when the Jews were
daily brought into contact with it. I can hardly
believe that such pollution was so lightly got rid
of Moreover, the Scribes would wish to attend the
sacrifice as well as the supper. If the Chdgtgdh
could be eaten on any of the seven days, why should
not the chief priests have postponed it till the third
or fourth day, since their presence in Pilate's court
was so imperatively demanded. But, indeed, I am
rather suspicious about these later Jewish cere-
monies. The destruction of Jerusalem, which altered
the whole procedure of sacrifice, created a revolution
in the observance of the Law. The Talmud, from
which our knowledge of the Chdgtgdh is derived,
was not written until five centuries after the city was
destroyed, and is no sure guide to Jewish customs
in the time of Christ. No ancient authors imagined
that "eating the passover" in S. John meant something

quite different from " eating the passover in S. Mark.
"
And there is another difficulty. S. John tells us
that all our Lord's adherents were excommunicated,

(ix. 22 ; xii. 42.) And if so, it would, I presume, be
impossible for them to get a lamb sacrificed except
by intrigue, to which they would not stoop.
Professor Hort, a few months before his death,
had a correspondence with Professor Sanday on
this subject. Only a few extracts from Dr. Hort's
lettershave been published, but Dr. Sanday, who
had advocated the Chdgigdh, acknowledged himself
convinced. He admitted that there is a real dis-
crepancy between the synoptists and S. John, and
that none of the explanations which had been
offered could be considered satisfactory.*
Meanwhile, my own examination of the synoptic
problem had forced upon me another solution on
entirely new lines.
When you look at the synoptic Gospels from an

historical point of view the first thing that strikes
you the extraordinary fact that they do not bring

is
Christ to Jerusalem until He entered it to be crucified.

Now the more you consider this, the more remark-
able becomes.
it
It cannot represent the whole truth. Even if we

rejected the fourth Gospel altogether, we should feel
certain, both from antecedent probability and from
certain casual expressions in the synoptists (as "O
Jerusalem . . . how often would Ihave gathered thy
children together . . ."), that Christ was no stranger
* The Expositor, vol. v. p. 183.
i;6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
in the Holy City. A Judean ministry is quite as
necessary as a Galilean.
Whence then came the omission? Did S. Peter
entirely pass over the Judaea? I do
work done in
not think so. The very fact that S. Mark devotes
six chapters out of sixteen to events which took
place in the precincts of Jerusalem makes me
suspicious. Important though the passion was, it
seems to be narrated at undue length. The pro-
portions of the history are destroyed.
And when we look closer, there are many things
in those six chapters which have no particular affinity
to the passion, but would decidedly gain in signifi-
cance if they were put a year or more before it.
They show how public feeling was educated but ;
that very education could scarcely be completed in

a fortnight. Events in real life move much more
slowly.
And there —
one incident the cleansing of the
is
temple —which John has placed at the beginning,

S.
and not at the close, of our Saviour's ministry. It
is very much to be noticed that S. John describes the
cleansing of the temple as happening at a passover

not at the final passover which is the only one
known to S. Mark, but at an earlier passover which
Christ passed in Jerusalem, some say three years,
some two, those who consider John vi. 4 to be
spurious, one year before the crucifixion.
It has been usual to suppose that there were two
cleansings of the temple, one at the earlier passover,
one at the last. Such a repetition is, to say the
least, highly improbable. That Christ should cleanse
the temple once, is intelligible ; that He should do

so when He first came forward as the Messiah, to
test the obedience of the Jews and appeal to their
religious feelings, I can understand. But to what
end would a repetition serve ? And if repeated, why-
should not S. Mark or S. John have told us so ?
I know that many persons object to admit so
serious a chronological discrepancy in S. Mark,
who was S. Peter's interpreter. But let us look at
the facts calmly. S. Mark only brings Christ to
Jerusalem at the last. Anything which happened
at Jerusalem during an earlier visit must therefore
either be omitted by S. Mark, transferred into Galilee,
or inserted into holy week. The structure of his
Gospel permits no other alternative. In short, the
Gospel is not arranged on a chronological but on a
topical plan.
If you ask how this is, my answer is that S. Peter
did not give a complete course of lessons, nor did
he arrange them in order. S. Mark, as Papias tells
us, did not write in order, because S. Peter's lessons

had been adapted to the immediate wants of the
pupils, one lesson being given at a time as the
occasion demanded. S. Peter left them so, and S.
Mark could not supply the defect. He was not an
eye-witness, and could not recover the true sequence.
Professor Sanday fully agrees with me on this
point. "The simple fact is," he writes, "that the
synoptic Gospels are only a series of incidents loosely
strung together, with no chronology at all worthy of
the name."*
* Expos itor vo\ ^ v. p. i6.
N
I earnestly exhort all biblical students to examine
into this question of the chronology of the synoptists
for themselves. If I am right, the exhausting labours
and tortuous explanations of the harmonists, in their
endeavour to reconcile what cannot be reconciled,
have been wasted.
I wish heartily that any words of mine could save
future students of the Gospels from what I am con-
vinced a useless task.
is There is so much to be
done more profitable researches, that I grudge the
in
time and energy spent on harmonies. When three
evangelists narrate the same events in the same
order, we are not entitled to infer that they follow
the true chronology, but only that they follow S.
Mark, whose order is not chronological.
Now if it be conceded that the cleansing of the
temple belonged to the earlier passover, it is clear
that the section in which Christ was asked, " By
what authority doest Thou these things?" (Mark
xi. 27-33) must be transferred to the earlier passover
also. And if so, I should transfer several sections

which are found in the next chapter, not, perhaps
to the first passover, but rather to one or other of
those subsequent visits which our Lord paid to
Jerusalem. These are Mark xii. 13-17, " Is it lawful

to give tribute to Caesar?"; 18-27, the seven brethren
marrying ; 28-36, the great commandment of the
law ;
38-40, the warning against the Scribes. All
these sections have no real connexion with holy
week, but will gain in significance if we put them
into an earlier period.
And I should then carry these suggestions one
step further. S. Peter seems to me to have narrated

how Christ, who was obedient to the law for our
sakes, ate the passover in the Holy City with His
disciples on His earlier visit, when He was not yet
excommunicate. Then they " made ready the pass-
over," ate the paschal lamb and the bitter herbs,
drank the wine, sang the hymn with all the customary
ceremonies.
One, two, or more years later, Christ again
assembled His disciples for the Last Supper. On this
occasion He gave them the sign of the man bearing
the pitcher of water. On this occasion He instituted
the Eucharist at the close of the meal, and spoke
those discourses which S. John has recorded. It was
the thirteenth of the month Nisan, and, therefore,
not the passover.
S. Mark has fused the two significant suppers into
one, by transferring to the latter what really belong
to the former. The other evangelists have followed
him in this, as in all the rest of his chronological
confusions.
Some one may object that S. Luke records this
sentence, " have earnestly desired to eat this pass-
I
over with you before I suffer," thus connecting the

two meals together, which I separate by a year or
more. This sentence, I reply, is peculiar to S. Luke,
and if anyone will read what I have written about
S. Luke's "editorial notes,"* and will then examine
S. Luke's Gospel to ascertain whether I have not
good grounds for what I say, he will not think that
verse a serious objection. The thought pressing
* Composition of the Four Gospels ^'^^. 1 16-127. Macmillan,
i8o NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
hard on our Lord's human mind was, " This is My
last meal." The Western catechists have slightly
modified the expression of it, or S. Luke himself has
inserted the word " passover," as is his wont.
It is possible, however, that there was no such
blending of narratives as I have supposed, but that
the whole scene should be transferred to the earlier
passover, and rehearsed at the Last Supper. Averse
though I am to vain repetitions, there is one re-
petition which I admit would have been full of
significance. What if Christ made the personal
covenant by the breaking of bread between Himself
and His disciples at the first passover in Jerusalem,*
renewed it at His second passover (?) in Capernaum
(John 4) with a larger company than the Twelve,
vi.
and in close connexion with the feeding of the five

thousand, and finally repeated it a third time on the
night on which He was betrayed, with perhaps the
additional word that His body, which they were to
eat, would soon be broken for them His blood, ;
which they were to drink, would soon be shed ? In

this way we shall both make the sacrament more
intelligibleas a covenant of brotherhood between
Himself and His people we shall explain and ;
justify the mysterious language of S. John vi. 51,

which has always been a difficulty with interpreters
we shall justify S. Paul's statement that our Lord
Jesus Christ on the same night in which He was
betrayed took bread, and we shall reduce S. Mark's
chronological error to a viininium.
If we understand the Eucharist as originally a
• See above, paês 141, 145.
DATE OF THE CRUCIFIXION i8i
covenant of personal allegiance, there is reason to

think that was frequently celebrated during our
it
Lord's ministry. That it was so is indicated by the

narrative of the journey to Emmaus, in which our
Lord was known by breaking of bread. The two
disciples in question had not been present at the
Last Supper, yet they understood the act. " Breaking
of bread " is quite a new phrase, invented to express
a new ceremony.
Our records of Christ's life are fragmentary. If it
were not for a single incidental statement in S. John,"^

we should have concluded confidently that the sacra-
ment of holy baptism was first instituted after the
Resurrection. And if we now know that it had been
practised by the apostles from the commencement
of Christ's ministry, what wonder if the other sacra-
ment had been celebrated too? might have to We
modify our conception of it, and regard it as a
covenant of union rather than a commemorative
sacrifice ; in short, as a sacrifice according to the
ancient conception of the word rather than the
modern, but we should, I think, only understand
its real meaning the better for such a change.
The question discussed in this paper is a very
serious one. Scholars are beginning to acknow-
ledge freely that there is a contradiction between
the synoptists and S. John respecting the day of the
month of the crucifixion. The old explanations of
the difference are failing or have already failed. The
genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is at stake. Under
these circumstances I have pointed out that the con-
* John iv. I, 2.
tradiction does not lie between S. Peter and S. John,
both of whom must have known the facts, but between
S. Mark and S. John, of whom S. Mark did not know
the facts, and may have confused the records, as S.
John shows him to have done on other occasions.
IV.
Did the crucifixion take place in the year 29 A.D.,

or inany other year between 27 and 35 ?
To argue this question at length would take a
volume. Those who wish to see what has been done
at it can read Wieseler's Synopsis, Salmon's Intro-
duction to the New Testament^ McClellan's New
Testament, and an article in the Church Quarterly
Review for January, 1892. I will try to state the
and make some observations upon them.
facts briefly,
Christ suffered (i) at the passover, (2) under
Pontius Pilate, (3) while Caiaphas was high priest,
but (4) while his father-in-law, Annas, who had been
high priest several years before, was still living and
exercising paramount influence.
We do not know the date of the death or decline
in power of Annas, but Pilate resided as Procurator
in Judaea ten years (27-37 A.D.). Caiaphas began
and ended his term of office sooner. The last pass-
over at which he can have officiated was in A.D. 35.
The period, therefore, in which the crucifixion must
have taken place is narrowed down to the nine years
27-35 A.D.
Astronomical calculations have been several times
made with a view to eliminate some of these years.

For as the crucifixion took place on Friday, the 14th
(or possibly the 1 5 th) of Nisan, all those years in which
the 14th of Nisan cannot have fallen on Friday (or
Thursday) may be set aside. By this method the
years 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 have been got rid of,
and there remain only 27, 30, and 33, of which 27 is
too early and 33 probably too late. Most of the
authorities accept the year 30 A.D.
But, as I pointed out in the last chapter, we are
never sure to a day which is the first day —or any
other day —of the month, and often we cannot be
sure to a month when the new year began. Thus
an element of uncertainty is introduced which may
vitiate all our calculations.
The writer in the Church Quarterly^ to whom I
alluded, takes advantage of this to plead for the year

29. If in that year Nisan fell a month earlier than
modern astronomy would allow, Friday, the 14th of
Nisan, would coincide with March 18. And it is
remarkable that March 18, 29 A.D., was given
(Epiphanius tells us*) in some MSS. of the apocry-
phal Acts of Pilate as the true date of the crucifixion.
Dr. Lipsius has written a treatise on the Acts of
Pilate {Die Pilatus-Acten, Kiel, 1886). The text of
these acts,t as it exists now, has been tampered with
by some scribe who adhered to the chronology of our
Lord's ministry, which was compiled by Eusebius.
The result is a confused medley. But there is no
reason to doubt that Epiphanius gives us the read-
* C. Hcereses^ li. i.
t Published in Studia Biblka, vol iv.

ing of the Acts which was current in his day, and
the very strangeness of the date is. considered to be a
proof that we have here a genuine tradition.

How far is it supported by the Gospels and by the
opinion of the ante-Nicene fathers ?
S. Luke and S. John are the only evangelists who
give us any further clue to the date. Let us look at
S. John's statements first.
(i) ii. 13. "The passover of the Jews [March-

April] was nigh and Jesus went up to Jerusalem." Cf.
ii. 21. [This visit was shortly after His baptism.]
(2) ii. 20. "In forty-six years was this temple
built."
(3) iv. 35. "Say ye not, Four months more and

harvest comes ?
(4) V. I. "After these things was a feast [name

not given] of the Jews, and Jesus went up to
Jerusalem."
(5) vi. 4. " And the passover [March-April], the
feast of the Jews, was nigh." [Jesus spent this feast
in Galilee.]
(6) vii. 2. " And the feast of the Jews, tabernacles

[October], was nigh."
(7) viii. 57. " Thou art not yet fifty years old."
(8) X. 22. "Then came the dedication [Decem-

ber] in Jerusalem ; it was winter."
(9) X. 55. "And the passover of the Jews [March-
April] was nigh." [At this passover the crucifixion
took place.]
Of these nine passages, however, it is probable
that the second and thirdought to be ruled out as
irrelevant. For (i) Dr. E. A. Abbott has shown
{Classical Review^ viii. 89) that Zerubbabel's temple,

and not Herod's, must have been intended by the
Jews and (2) although John iv. 35 might mean
;
" Harvest is four months distant from the present
moment!' in which case our Lord must have been

speaking in or near December, for the Jewish harvest
began in April, it is almost certain that the verse is
a proverb, " Say not ye [when you have planted your
barley], Four months more and harvest comes* ? " for
'
four months was about the minimum interval between

sowing and reaping in Palestine.
S. Luke's list is shorter.
(i) i. 5. " In the days of Herod " the Great [who
died B.C. 4, spring] John's birth was promised.*
(2) ii. 2. "There issued a decree from Augustus
Caesar that all the civilized world should be enrolled.
This, a first enrolment, was made when Quirinius
was propraetor of Syria."
[Quirinius was propraetor of Syria A.D. 6-10. It
is not improbable that he had been propraetor once
before, in B.C. 4 ; not, however, before Herod's death.]

iii. I. " In the fifteenth year of the reign of
(3)
Tiberius Caesar [A.D. 28-29] John the Baptist began
to preach."
(4) iii. 23. "And Jesus Himself was beginning to

be about thirty years old " at His baptism.
When we look at these dates, the first question
that strikes us is. How long did our Lord's ministry
last? The earliest answer is that of Irenseus, who
* According to S. Luke, therefore, our Lord may have been born
during Herod's reign, or shortly after his death. S. Matthew ii. 4
asserts that He was born during Herod's Hfe ; S. Luke leaves the
question open. This fact is not generally noticed.
puts itabout twenty years, for he began to teach
at
when about thirty years old (Luke iii. 23), and con-
tinued till fifty (John viii. 57), and "as he
nearly
came and to sanctify every time of life, it was
to save
fitting that he should pass through age as well as
youth." Now Irenaeus was born in the province
of Asia, the very centre of church life in the sub-
apostolic age. No
one had a better opportunity of
getting correct information than he and he declares ;
that " all the elders who had known John the disciple
of the Lord in Asia witness that he gave them this
tradition."*
The Bishop of Durham (Dr. Westcott), in his
Commentary on John (viii. 57), writes: "However
strange it may appear, some such view is not incon-
sistent with the only fixed historical dateswhich we
have with regard to our Lord's life, the date of His
birth. His baptism, and the banishment of Pilate."
Suppose the have taken place at the
crucifixion to
latest possible date, viz., A.D. 35. Fifty years from
that would bring us to 16 B.C. Our Lord, if born
then, would have been twelve years old at Herod's
death, and the flight into Egypt (Matt. ii. 13) must
either be rejected as unhistorical or must have lasted
several years, and would thus come into conflict with
S. Luke ii. 39-41, in which we read that Joseph
and Mary, after performing all the requirements of
the law respecting Mary's purification, returned to
Nazareth and dwelt there, except that they annually
visited Jerusalem to keep the passover. Again,
Tiberius celebrated his decennia^ or tenth year
* Adv. Haer, xi. 22, 4 ff., v. xxxiii. 3.
festivities, in A.D.
24. His fifteenth year, therefore,
was 28-29, which date our Lord would have been
at
forty-four years old, and not, as S. Luke affirms,
about thirty. (Luke iii. 23.) In the third place, the
census under Quirinius (Luke ii. 2) will be twenty-
one years wrong and quite impossible. I wish that
the bishop had stated his exact meaning more clearly.
It seems to me that ten years is the utmost length to
which we can stretch the ministry without throwing

overboard S. Luke's chronology altogether. That it
really did last about ten years I think not impossible.
It would be natural to say "You are not yet fifty" to
a man of nearly forty, but, bad though the Jews were
as observers, they would hardly say this to a man of
"
thirty-two, especially when " You are not yet forty
would be more suitable for rhetorical reasons, and
there does not seem to be any mystical significance
in the number fifty that they should choose it on
that account.
If the ministry lasted about ten years, the Gospels
are seen to be more fragmentary than ever, S. John's
feasts are not a complete list, and new significance is
given to his rhetorical hyperbole in xxi. 25 "There:
are many other things which Jesus did, and if they

be written every one, I suppose that not even the
world itself would contain the books which should
be written."
On the other hand, the Gnostics, the Clementine
homilies, Clement of Alexandria, and other ante-
Nicene authorities restrict the ministry to one year,
in defence of which opinion they quoted the verse,
" To preach the acceptable year of the Lord." (Luke
iv. 12.) These persons have some right to claim the
synoptists on their side. The entire absence of dates
from S. Mark gives the impression that no great
length of time is described in his Gospel, and that
impression is heightened by his forty-one " straight-
ways." If the events really cover a period of three

or more years, my contention of the unchronological
character of S. Peter's Memoirs* is fully established.
S. Luke seems to me
have held that the
either to
ministry lasted one year only, or to have put the
crucifixion about A.D. 33. When he says that the
Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius (A.D. 28-29) ^^ cannot leave more than a
year for the ministry, unless the date of the crucifixion
be postponed. It is easy, as we have seen, to post-
pone it, but commentators have not usually taken
this course. Assuming that our Lord's ministry
lasted three years and a half, and terminated in or
about A.D. 30, they have held that S. Luke calculated
the reign of Tiberius, not from the death of Augustus
in August, A.D. 14, but from a supposed partition of
the imperial power two years and a half earlier.
For this partition there is no warrant, and we can
have little hesitation in setting it aside.
I have shown that all the chronological data in S.
Luke are "editorial notes," and stand on a different

footing historically from the rest of the Gospel. They
are S. Luke's own ideas, the result of his private
investigations.
In spite of Professor Ramsay's pleading,! it seems
* Composition of the Four Gospels, pp. 21, 22 Synopsis p. xi.
; ,
+ Expositor, April -June, 1897.

to me to be impossible to get over the historical

difficulties which beset S. Luke's account of the
census. He alludes to the census again (Acts v. 37),
and by his use of the definite article there indicates,

to my thinking, that he knew of one census and only
one ; that be so, it was certainly the census of A.D.
if
6, atwhich the riots took place. But in A.D. 6

Herod the Great had been dead nine years, and his
successor, Archelaus, had been deposed. We cannot
put the Nativity then. Moreover, the essential part
of S. Luke's narrative is that "all went up to be
enrolled, each to his own city." The language,
strictly interpreted, implies that everyone did this,
Jew and Gentile alike, the civilised world over but ;
let us suppose that S. Luke meant to say that only
the Jews did it, nay, only those Jews who dwelt in
Palestine, still, is the statement historically conceiv-
able? Professor Ramsay says that the census must
have been taken by tribes, and that not in conse-
quence of any order from Augustus, but to suit local
feeling. How many Jews in that day knew to what
tribe they belonged ? Had not tribal distinctions
been greatly enfeebled since the return from Babylon ?
The popular belief is that ten tribes were lost, and
although that is clearly contradicted by the New
Testament, in which we find S. Paul speaking of his
7), and read that
" twelve-tribed nation" (Acts xxvi.
he himself belonged to the tribe of Benjamin

(Romans xi. i ; Phil. iii. 5), and that Hannah
belonged to the tribe of Asher (Luke ii. 36), never-
theless tribal feeling had generally yielded to
national unity. Thousands of Jews, however, were
ashamed of and desired to be thought
their nation,
Gentiles, (i Cor. Who was to compel them
vii. i8.)
to journey from Galilee to Judsea to be enrolled?

But, lastly, S. Luke does not say that the Jews were
enrolled by their tribes, but each man by his own
city, according to his own family. This would
require a general exodus, which, if voluntary, would
not satisfy S. Luke's language ; if compulsory, I
cannot imagine any power which could enforce it.

Riots were general and serious as it was what must ;
they have been everyone had to discover and

if
remove to the abode of his remote ancestors ? No,

S. Luke evidently has somewhat misunderstood the
situation.
There a similar historical difficulty about
is
Theudas Acts v. 36, unless Josephus has made

in
a mistake, which is not unlikely. It is of the utmost
importance in apologetics to recognise different
degrees of historical attestation in the Gospels.
There are occasionally weak must not
links. We
make the strength of the chain depend on them,
but deny that the Gospels are constructed on the
chain principle.
But how did those authors who reduced the
ministry to one year explain was
S. John ? It
suggested by Mr. H. Browne"^ that the defining words

"the passover" in John vi. 4 are a mistaken gloss,
and that the verse originally ran " Now the feast of
the Jews was nigh," by which statement a Jew would
mean the feast of tabernacles (the same feast which
is mentioned in vii. 2), but a Christian would more
* Ordo scccloruni, 1844,

naturally understand the passover. The words in

question are found in every extant manuscript and
is any doubt of their genuine-
version of S. John, nor
ness asserted by ancient writers. Nevertheless Dr.
Hort has obelized them in Westcott and Hort's Greek
Testament, rather for calling attention to ancient
chronologies than they are really
to assert that
spurious. Unless they were absent from certain
manuscripts, which we no longer possess, he does
not see how they can have been overlooked.
If they were struck out, S. John's chronology
would become beautifully simple. His feasts would
run Passover (March-April ii. i 3-23), pentecost (?)
: ;
(May ; v. i), tabernacles (October ; vi. 4, vii. 2), dedi-

cation (December x. 22), passover (March-April
;
xi. 55), and the whole period would cover one year,
together with a few weeks which intervened between

the baptism and the first passover.
The one-year ministry would solve many difficulties.
It is the only scheme which reconciles S. Luke, S.
Matthew, and S. John. Not improbably it is true
the more I consider it, the more attractive it appears.
What I wish to emphasize is this consideration, that
ifwe cannot positively decide between one year and
ten, we must be prepared to keep our minds open on
many biblical controversies.
Eusebius taught that our Lord's ministry lasted
four years. He assumed that the unnamed feast in
S. John was a passover. Many students at
V. I
a very early date adopted this view, for S. John's

curiously indefinite statement, " After these things
was a feast of the Jews," was altered in the second
century into the more natural " the feast," which
Christians took for the passover. The first year,
therefore (which was probably a short one), ended,
according to Eusebius, with the passover of ii. 13-23 ;
the second year with the supposed passover of

V. I the third with the passover of vi. 4 and the
; ;
fourth with the passover of xi. 55, at which the cruci-

fixion took place. Eusebius, whose chronological
system obtained wide acceptance, argued thus: (i)
We read in S. Luke iii. i of the high-priesthood of
Annas and Caiaphas. Our Lord's ministry must
have begun under Annas and ended under Caiaphas.
Three high priests came between them. Allowing
them one year apiece (John xi. 49-51, xviii, 13) we
get four years. (2) Our Lord's ministry began in
A.D. 29, the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and a solar
eclipse took place during the crucifixion. Phlegon
mentions an eclipse of the sun in the year A.D. 33.
This also gives four years. (3) Daniel, ix. 27, speaks
of three and a half weeks, at the end of which the
sacrificeand meat offering should cease. Assume
that each week represents a year, and you get three
years and a half for the ministry.
The first of these arguments rests on a mistake.
S. Luke says that when the Baptist came forth
"Annas or'^ Caiaphas (as we should express it) was
high priest." Caiaphas was the nominee of Rome,
Annas exercised the real power. The faithful hesi-
tated to give the sacred title to the puppet who
depended for his position on the will of the foreigner.!
* a.px'êpim is in the singular according to the true text.
t S.John's language (xi, 49-51, xviii. 13) does not necessarily imply,
though it does suggest, that the high priest held office for only one year.
Certainly, though the Romans would not tolerate life officers, they
allowed the high priest to continue for several years. Annas reigned
6-15 A.D.
The second argument rests on a double mistake. A

solar eclipse cannot happen when the moon is at
the full, as must be the case during passover, nor
can it last True, Eusebius
longer than eight minutes.
might quote Luke, who, according to the true text,
S.
attributed the three hours' darkness to an eclipse of
the sun but this he did in one of his " editorial
;
notes," which, as we have seen, express his own

opinions, which are not always warranted. Of all
the schemes which we have examined this four
years (or rather three years and a half) scheme of
Eusebius has been the most popular because of the
prophecy of Daniel, the meaning of which is at least
uncertain. It is supposed also to be supported by
S. Luke xiii. 7, " Behold there are three years from

the time that I come seeking fruit on this fig tree,"
though the number "three" in a parable is more
likely to have a mystical meaning of completeness,
as in S. Luke xi. 5, xiii. 21-32.
Much more may for the scheme which
be said
makes the ministry two years and a fraction.
last
This reduces the discrepancy between S. Luke and
S. John, and accords with the Acts of Pilate.
The unnamed feast of S. John v. i is not in the
least degree likely to be passover, pentecost, or taber-
nacles. It is much more probably a minor festival.
Wieseler, Meyer, and Godet argue for Purim (March),
Dr. Westcott for Trumpets (September).
We have passed in review a great number of
subjects of engrossing interest to all biblical students.
We have shown that many received opinions need
revision. We have pointed out places where further
O
investigation is desirable, and we have submitted
some new proposals. Our general conclusion is, that
certainty is unattainable, but unless the ministry
lasted about ten years, the most probable date for
the crucifixion 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Friday, the four-
is
teenth of Nisan, A.D. 29, and that the fourteenth of

Nisan probably fell on March 18.
XV.
MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES ON

MODERN CRITICISM
I.
HALCOMBE
MR.He never has is hard on modern criticism.
a good word for modern critics.
The Bishop of Durham he has singled out for special

attack. The rest, though they are numerous and
hold widely divergent opinions, he groups together
and condemns without distinction.
Mr. Halcombe forgets that he is a modern critic
himself He has spent years of patient toil on the
Gospels, like a critic. He has sedulously marshalled,
analysed, and interrogated his facts, like a critic.
He has startled us with his conclusions, like a critic.

And if a modern critic is not merely one who writes
at the close of the nineteenth century, but one who
ruthlessly disintegrates books which the Church has
always held to be perfect, Mr. Halcombe's treatment
of S. Luke's Gospel makes him a very modern critic
indeed.
In attempting to state briefly a few of my reasons
for not agreeing with him, I have no desire to snatch
a victory for the moment. My wish is to help others,
if possible, in arriving at truth on this important
195
question. I desire to do full justice to Mr.
Halcombe's ability, his industry, and his earnestness,
but I am unable to accept his conclusions, and I say
SD with sincere regret.
Mr. Halcombe's contention is that the Gospels
were written in the following order i John, Matthew,
Mark, Luke.
Now in putting S. John first Mr. Halcombe does
not stand alone, Schleiermacher advocated the
same view in But
the early part of this century.
not even his influence had any appreciable effect on
Christian belief The common sense of the Church
refused to give way. But Mr. Halcombe contends
that this was the second century order, and appeals
to Tertullian to support him. We will not stay to
ask why we should prefer the opinion of a third
century Montanist to the testimony of the Fathers
of the Church. If Mr. Halcombe's supporters had
recollected the golden rule, " Verify your references,"
they would have been met by a more serious
difficulty. Tertullian's order, according to all the
manuscripts and editions which I have consulted,
appears to be ; John, Matthew, Luke, Mark.
Here is the Latin text :
" Denique nobis fidem
ex apostolis Johannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex
apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant."
And here is Mr. Halcombe's translation :
" This
then is our position. From amongst John
apostles,
and Matthew plant in us the faith ; from amongst
apostolic men Mark and Luke confirm this
faith."
And again :
" Let the Gospels, as placed by Ter-
MR. HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 197
tullian—]dhr\y Matthew, MARK, LUKE— be repre-

sented by the letters W O R D."
Their meaning in this order, he argues, is plain to
every child ; but the common order, O R D W, or
the order adopted by modern critics, R O D W, is
hopelessly unintelligible.
Mr. Halcombe is fond of rearrangements. He has
transposed S. Luke viii. 22-xi. 13 and xi. 14-xiii. 21,
but he has written a volume to justify himself in doing

so. He has discovered that the Muratorian fragment
of the Canon has been tampered with by the seventh
century translator, who put S. John's Gospel last,
whereas the second century author had put it first
but he has given some, if not probable, reasons for

thinkingso. I cannot find, however, that he has
anywhere told us on what authority he has altered
the current text of Tertullian. Until he does this
I must suppose the editors of Tertullian to be right.
And if so, WODR will be as unintelligible as any
of the other permutations.*
Meanwhile I will give my own account of this
question of the order of the Gospels.
Let us transfer ourselves in thought to the year
90 A.D. At that time, according to my belief, the
Epistle of S. James had been in existence more than
forty years, being the oldest of the New Testament
writings ; S. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians
come next, with an age of thirty-eight years ; S.
Mark's written Gospel was nearly attaining its
A first sketch of this paper appeared in the Expository Times

*
(T. and T. Clark), and drew from Mr. Halcombe the admission that
he was in error on this point.
majority ; S. Matthew's was not much younger ; but
S. Luke's was only ten years old ; and S. John's, if
Mr. Halcombe will allow me to say so, was an infant.
All the books of the New Testament, except,
perhaps, the Second Epistle of S. Peter, which is
of doubtful canonicity, were in existence, but hadall
a limited circulation. Some Churches probably had

none of them, being still content with the old oral
teaching. S. Paul's Epistles, however, or at least the
longer ones, must have been possessed by many of
the Western Most Churches had one
Churches.
Gospel ;few, I imagine, more than one. The
Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles, and
the Apocalypse, I cannot suppose to have been in
use over a wide area at this date.
But the death of S. John, and the rapid renjoval
of the last of the eye-witnesses, must have had a
potent effect in creating or stimulating the desire
to possess apostolic writings. During the next
hundred years the books of the New Testament
penetrated everywhere. They were translated into
Latin and Syriac. False Gospels, like the recently-
discovered Gospel according to S. Peter, or Marcion's
edition of S. Luke, or the Ebionite edition of the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, competed with
them in certain Churches. Tatian's Dia Tessaron
was beginning to supplant them in Edessa. But a
healthy scepticism arose. Questions were asked.
Was a book
which claimed admission into the
Church written by an apostle? If not, where did
it circulate? Who was its sponsor? And so the
wheat was separated from the chaff, and the Canon
was gradually closed ; though some books, like the

Epistles of Barnabas and Clement, the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Acts of S. Paul, and the Revelation of
S. Peter, were read as Scripture in some Churches
for two or three centuries longer.
It is plain that many years must have elapsed
before the scattered books of the New Testament
were collected into one or (more usually) two
volumes. For whenever a Church desired to secure
some Gospel or Epistle which it had not used
hitherto, the booksellers would make a copy of the
work, bind it in a separate volume, and send it in
that condition, in which it would remain. For there
was precedent for doing so. In the synagogues the
books of the Old Testament were kept in a series of
rolls. Probably the New Testament was at first
kept in rolls also, for the art of binding into a codex
had been but recently brought into use. And it
may be that the sacred books were kept secret
amongst the Christians, in which case they would
be copied and bound by such of the brethren as
could undertake the work.
The small size of the rolls, the cheap paper, the
poor binding, accounts for the loss of these primitive
books. In less than a century papyrus would be
rubbed to pieces. And no books of the New
Testament appear to have been written on vellum
until the conversion of Constantine. The poor and
persecuted Churches could not afford such luxuries,
and hence their service books have perished.
Now it is clear that when the twenty-seven books
— more or less, for the number was not exactly
fixed at first —began to be collected into one or two
volumes, some decision must have been made about
their relative order.
And it would be contrary to experience for any
great pains to be taken at first to fix the order. We
cannot suppose a Church Council to have been held
for the purpose, or even a local Synod. It is possible
that the choice was left to the purchaser or to the
scribe. But in the course of years a few principles
for arranging the books would become established.
The Gospels almost invariably stand first in
existing manuscripts. And was right
this ; for
though written last, they had been composed
first,
and had circulated in an oral form from very early

times. Committing them to writing was indeed for
us a matter of moment, but to the
the highest
primitive Church had not been so.
it To the
Christians who learned them by heart, and not
merely heard them read, it mattered little whether
the catechist dictated the lesson from a book or from
his memory. Hence the Fathers, in speaking of the
Gospels, fail to distinguish between their oral stage
and the written stage. They regard them as a
product of the first days. And, at least in the case
of the synoptic Gospels, they are right in doing so,
though many changes and additions were made

during the oral period.
There was another reason for putting the Gospels
first.In the Old Testament the Law stood first,
the Prophets next, the Psalms and writings last.
Now the Gospels corresponded to the Law, the Acts
of the Apostles to the earlier Prophets (Joshua,
Judges, etc.), the Epistles and Apocalypse to the

later Prophets. Psalms and poetical writings the
New Testament has none, so fully does the ancient
Psalter suffice for devotional needs.
But what order were the Gospels arranged with
in
respect to one another? Different Churches took,
as we should have expected, different views. Most
—
of the Western Churches by which term Rome and
the North African Churches are principally meant
seem to have put the Gospels which were written by
apostles first, and then those which were written by
the followers of apostles. In nearly all other
Churches the order, as far as we can ascertain it,
was that which we adopt now.
But which of these two arrangements was the
older ? I cannot positively say but let us look at
;
some early authorities, i. The Muratorian fragment

of the Canon (about 170 A.D.) is imperfect; its
testimony concerning S. Matthew and S. Mark has
been lost, except the last six words, which appear
to apply to S. Mark but it expressly states that S.
;
Luke stood third and S. John fourth. Mr. Halcombe

thinks that the seventh century translator has
reversed the second century author's order. I wish
to do justice to his reasons, but I do not think that
the learned will agree with him. 2. Irenseus (about
180 A.D.) says that the true chronological order was:
(i) the Aramaic edition of S. Matthew ; (2) S. Mark;
(3) S. Luke; (4) S. John. He does not, however,
say that the books were thus placed in his manuscript.
Perhaps they were not. Perhaps with him they still
formed separate volumes. 3. Clement of Alexandria,
"giving the tradition of the primitive fathers," says
that "John, last of all, observing that the material
facts had been exhibited in the other Gospels,
produced at the instigation of his acquaintances,
and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, a
spiritual Gospel."* 4. Tatian'sDia Tessaron opens
with S. John i. i fif. This creates a slight pre-
sumption that Tatian's New Testament put S.
John first, but nothing more ; the nature of his
harmony almost necessitated this commencement.
5. Tertullian (about 200 A.D.) gives the order John,
Matthew, Luke, Mark, and argues for it as the
necessarily true chronological order. Tertullian was
an advocate. I have had occasion to lecture on him
several times, and I have formed a poor opinion of
his literary honesty. He was a plagiarist, who copied
without acknowledgment, sometimes without under-
standing his authority. If S. John stood first in his
New Testament, and that order favoured his argu-
ment at the moment, he was not the man to inquire
why it stood first. He would flout the fact in the
face of his adversary, as if it were irrefutable truth.
Now in arguing, as he was, against Marcion, who
accepted S. Luke's Gospel only, it was important
to maintain the superiority of S. John and S.
Matthew. We must therefore discount his language.
He argues the question tediously through four long
chapters, bringing, after his wont, plenty of positive
assertion and plenty of abuse against his opponents,
but he never quotes an authority. If he had been
able to do so he would not have lost the opportunity.
* EusEBius, H. E. vi. 14.
He practically confesses that he has no information.

The kind oi a priori reasons which he presses, though
they were the common stock-in-trade of rhetoricians
of his stamp, vanish before a single fact, and cannot
stand against the statements of Irenseus.
I infer, however, from his testimony that in the
Churches of Rome and North Africa, with which he
was connected, the order of the Gospels in his time
—
was what he states it to be John, Matthew, Luke,
Mark. Nay, I infer that this order had prevailed at
Rome from the day when the Gospels had first been
bound into one volume. Otherwise the conviction
that this was the true order, could hardly have
prevailed so decidedly as TertuUian's arguments
prove it to have done.
But I do not believe that the Roman Christians
had any good authority for putting the Gospels in
that order, even if they had originally intended it
to be the chronological order, and not as on the —
surface it appears to be — an order according to the
dignity of the writers. They knew the date of S.
Mark's Gospel, which had probably been written in
their city, and they inferred that the other Gospels
must be earlier than S. Mark from what they heard
of their circulation elsewhere in an oral form.
For notice what follows. Although the pressure
of external opinion did not for more than a century
alter the rule that apostles should stand first, it did
vindicate the priority of S. Matthew to S. John.
It had been easy to put S. John first. It must have
been very difficult, after he had occupied that post
for thirty years or more, to exalt S. Matthew over
his head. Nevertheless this was done. All existing
manuscripts of the Western Church testify to the
order Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. So stand the
Gospels in the uncial Codex BezcB^ so are they found
in the manuscripts of the old Latin version, in the
Gothic Version, and in the Apostolical Constitutions.
The instincts of religious people are intensely
conservative. S. John could not have been deposed
from the post of honour, if the reasons for putting
him first could bear examination. Many persons were
living who recollected the adoption of the order. If

there had been good cause for its retention their
voices could not have been silenced. They did
succeed in retaining for him the second place, but
not the first.
Meanwhile the common arrangement Matthew, —

—
Mark, Luke, John prevailed throughout the East
but before we discuss it some different orders are
worthy of notice. In the Codex Claromontanus of
S. Paul's Epistles there is bound up a page which
contains an exceedingly ancient list of the books of
the New Testament (including certain apocryphal

authors now rejected), with the number of lines in
each. In this list the order of the Gospels is
Matthew, John, Mark, Luke.

The Syrian which belong to
versions, the oldest of
the second century, do Halcombe's
not give Mr.
order. The fragments of the Curetonian Syriac have
at present a peculiar order of their own Matthew, :
Mark, John, Luke. But nothing is extant of the

version of S. Mark except the last four of those
twelve verses with which in the common text S.
Hark is concluded. In the newly-discovered palim-

psest, however, of this version, all these twelve verses
are omitted, a most significant factand S. Luke's ;
Gospel follows S. Mark xvi. 8 immediately on the

same page, with no space left between. The four
Gospels stand in the common order Matthew, Mark, i
Luke, John.
Finally, in the Memphitic and Sahidic versions,
the late Bishop Lightfoot detected three stages.
In the first the common order — Matthew, Mark,
—
Luke, John prevailed. Next, S. John was trans-
ferred from the last place to the first, Mr. Halcombe's
order being thus at last obtained. Soon afterwards
the original order was restored.
Meanwhile the practice of putting S. John's
Gospel last was becoming general. When S. Jerome
revised the old Latin versions, or possibly before
this, the Eastern order was introduced at Rome, and
from thence gradually spread over Christendom,
though two centuries passed before the Vulgate
drove out the old Latin versions.
S. Jerome could hardly have succeeded if the
arguments had not been on his side. Irenaeus was
not the only one who knew something about the
relative dates of the Gospels. Others whose names
have perished must have given their testimony
for Origen was convinced, so were Athanasius,
Chrysostom, Augustine, and the other Fathers. The
Eastern order is adopted by a canon of the Council
of Laodicea (363 A.D.), and in later Councils, in
which Western bishops were present to plead for the
Western order. I cannot imagine any arguments to
2o6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
have been used against them except those derived
from chronology. The Western order appears to me
to have been based on the precedence of the authors,
the Eastern order on the dates of the writing.
Mr. Halcombe appeals to the Lectionaries of the
Greek Church, which, though themselves not earlier
than the sixth century, he rightly regards as resting
on older usage. It is true that the Eastern Church
selected the " Gospels for the day " at Easter and
in the weeks immediately following from S. John
as a general rule ; and it is true that Easter was
reckoned the commencemeut of the ecclesiastical
year. Hence, in the volume which was prepared
for the sole use of the " Gospeller," selections from
S. John come first, and except two " Gospels " from
S. Mark and two from S. Luke, he is read daily
until Whitsunday. But this fact does not prove
much. Perhaps the men who arranged the services
put S. John first because of his apostolic rank, more
probably because the truths which he proclaims are
best suited to the most triumphant period of the
Church calendar. Certainly, while the Evangelis-
terium held the broken fragments of the Gospels in
this order, the Bible on the lectern held them un-
broken in the common order. And if this is so, it
only confirms my contention that there were two
ways of arrangement, one according to dignity, the
other according to dates.
Mr. Halcombe will retort that modern critics do
not agree with the early Fathers, but strike out for
themselves a new and unheard-of order Mark, —
Matthew, Luke, John. I reply that I fully accept
the order of Irenaeus, who was brought up in Asia

Minor, where he had often seen and heard Polycarp,
the pupil of S. John. But I have shown that our
Greek edition of S. Matthew is a slightly later work
than the Aramaic edition of S. Matthew to which
Irenaeus alludes, and thus it becomes a little later
than S. Mark.
If, however, we go beyond the date of writing to
the time when the oral Gospel was first composed,

then the discrepancy becomes greater, and S. Mark
is much older than S. Matthew. I rejoice to have
Irenaeus on my side, and Papias and Origen and

others who have a right to be heard. But I do not,
any more than Mr. Halcombe, undertake to follow
them blindly. Church Councils are not infallible
guides in solving literary problems. Take a parallel
case. The Catholic Epistles, after some vicissitudes,
fell into the order —James, Peter, John, Jude. I
should arrange them —James, Jude, Peter, John. S.

Paul's Epistles are given in the Muratorian fragment
in this order — Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans, Phile-
mon, Titus, Timothy. Gradually they settled down
into present order.
their But modern scholars
place —
them Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians,*
Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians,
I Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy. Would Mr. Halcombe
propose to go back to the old order? If he did,
would anyone support him?
The ancients did their best. Their proximity to
* I am not yet convinced that the Epistle to the Galatians is the
earliest of S. Paul's epistles.
the events gave them certain advantages. Direct
testimony, like that of Irenaeus, must not lightly be
set aside. But we claim the right to review the
whole question, and decide it according to the
evidence.
II.
The ruler of the feast at Cana, betraying his

vulgarity when he thought to parade his wit, made
use of the coarse epigram, " Every man at the
beginning of a banquet produces his best wines,
and when his guests are drunk, then those of an
inferiorbrand thou hast kept the good wine until
:
now." (S. John ii. lo.)

Mr. Halcombe thinks that the Gospels were
produced according to the earthly precedent
described by the ruler of the feast, and not accord-
ing to the divine plan followedby Christ. S. John,
he came first and culled the choicest fruits of
says,
all S. Matthew followed, selecting the best of what
;
was left S. Mark and S. Luke, being evangelists,

;
but not apostles, did not presume to record any-

thing, nor even to copy anything, of the highest
spiritual value. Indeed, the three synoptists avoided
S. John altogether, as towering above their heads.
They read, admired, and passed him by. But
S. Mark endeavoured to serve the Church by slightly
expanding S. Matthew's historical narratives, without
presuming to make use of the discourses and the
doctrinal portions. S. Luke added a few distinctly
" ministerial " details.
Thus the best wine was set forth first, afterwards

that which was worse.
To my mind such a plan of composition seems

unworthy of God, and incredible in man. To take
a single instance, S. Mark on this hypothesis read
the words, "Come unto Me all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Was
it humility which made him deliberately omit them,
as too good for so insignificant a creature as himself

to record? Or was it a conscious or unconscious
feeling that they were unsuited to his readers ? A
man with such preposterous humility was ill-equipped
for the work of an evangelist. Readers so unchristian
would not value a Gospel.
But let us see whether Mr. Halcombe's method
is followed out in other New Testament writings.
Luther described S. James's Epistle as an epistle

of straw. It contains but little Christian doctrine.
The spirit is that of the Old Testament, caught
from Isaiah and the prophets, and only slightly
affected by the Incarnation. If Luther had but
known that S. James was the earliest of the
Christian writers, his estimate might have been
different. He would have seen in the Epistle the
pledge of future things and the assurance that the
Old Testament is not contrary to the New, but
simplyearlier and less developed. S. James clings
mainly to the Old. His Epistle is Christianity in
swaddling clothes.
S. Mark's Gospel might with equal justice be
described as a gospel of straw. Give it the first
place, and its value is seen. It is the historical

basis on which the other synoptic Gospels are
built. It is the first-fruits of the Spirit, the glory
P
which led to glory. Put it second or third, and
few scholars in this age would admit its right to
exist.
Again, we have thirteen Epistles of S. Paul.
Read them in their chronological order, as every
Bible student ought to do, and you trace step by
step the development of the apostle's inner life.
They may be arranged into four groups, which to

assist the memory may be roughly separated by
an interval of five years in each case.
The first group (A.D. 52) contains the Epistles to
the Thessalonians, which may almost be described
as a youthful effort. The Tubingen critics, with
singular lack of appreciation, judged these Epistles
to be unworthy of the master-mind, and it is only
as a firstwork that we can defend their genuineness,
but as such they are of the highest value. In the
second group (A.D. 57) we have the product of man-
hood. The Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians,
and Romans have no equal, whether we regard
them in respect of creative genius, of variety, or
of vigour. They have been accepted as undoubtedly
Pauline writings by even the most destructive and
narrow-minded critics. They are practically un-
assailable. In the third group (A.D. 62) we have
the result of chastened experience. The Epistles
to the Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and
Ephesians are the work of the imprisonment. Age,
grief, and disappointment have sobered, but given
depth to, the apostle's spiritual hopes. To many

persons these writings have been the most con-
solatory of his efforts. Lastly, in the Pastoral
Epistles (a.d. 68) we see the old man retiring from

speculation, and devoting himself to organization.
The radical has become a moralist. He who boldly
trusted to great principles now descends to petty-
details, for the time of his departure is at hand,
and he feels the need of providing successors and
endowing them.
Here, then, are all the stages of progress from
weakness through strength to maturity and even
the beginnings of decay. Everything shows that
inspiration quickens, vitalises, energizes, but does
not alter the laws of thought nor change the
character of the human mind.
Thirdly, let us glance at the earlier period, when
writings were, according to the common belief, un-
known, and only the outlines of a few great speeches
have been preserved. S. Luke has collected in the
Acts of the Apostles such information as we possess
of the work of this period. Its meagreness and
disappointing character are the best proof of its
truth. Take S. Stephen's speech, which runs its
weary length through fifty-two verses. Except in

the last, there is not even an allusion to Christ or
to anything Christian. It was in the synagogue
that S. Stephen had learned to preach ; and if we
did not know it, we could hardly have believed that
he was an officer of the Church. But S. Paul's
sermon at the Pisidian Antioch is not so very much
better. S. Peter's speeches attest the fact of the
resurrection, and press on the Jewish conscience
the guilt of the crucifixion ; but except certain
allusions to the fulfilment of Scripture, they do
nothing more. It is only in the latter part of the
book that we find anything like developed doctrine.
No doubt the character of the speeches is largely
affected by the audience and the surroundings but, ;
I maintain, it is still more due to the immaturity
of the speaker's conceptions. The Christian leaders

had not yet attained to the fulness of their later
knowledge. Development and progress may be
discerned on every side.
For it is a law of the human mind that combating
error is the best way to advance knowledge. They
who have never joined in controversy have no firm
grasp of truth. Hateful and unchristian as theological
disputes are apt to become, they have this merit,
that they open our eyes. The Arian controversy,
though detestable at the time, left the Church richer
in the faith. And S. Paul would not have had so
sure an apprehension of truth if he had not had to
combat heresy in Corinth, Galatia, and Colossae.
But, Mr. Halcombe may reply, this is true of the
doctrinal facts of the New Testament, but the case
of the Gospels is different. The evangelists are not
theologians or historians interpreting what they
narrate, but annalists recording certain words and
deeds. Proximity to the event is the one thing
needful. The earliest narrator would be the best.
For their faces, like that of Moses, shone from their
communion with Him who is the Light, and, as
years rolled on, the glory would inevitably fade
away.
This is precisely the question on which we differ.
S. Mark, I maintain, was an annalist. He recorded,
almost without comment, what he had learned from

S. Peter. But the other evangelists were historians.
They interpret for us the facts which they relate.
By numerous editorial notes and observations they
give us the result of their meditations. By a large
number of new sections they increase the store of
truth. For thus was promise fulfilled, that
Christ's
the Holy back to their remem-
Spirit should bring
brance what Christ had spoken to them. In other
words, they did not at first understand the full
meaning of their trust. They did not see what
was most important in Christ's work. Their con-
ceptions of Christianity were crude and one-sided.
The deeper truthswere brought home to them
gradually. The glory, so far from fading away,
waxed, as S. Paul says, brighter and brighter in
proportion as they severally received the illumination
of the Spirit of the Lord.
Mark's Gospel, therefore, with its naked history,
S.
came first. S. Matthew's and S. Luke's were founded
upon it they all existed in the
(of course, while
oral stage), but they were slowly enriched by the
gradual accumulation of facts and teaching collected
from a great variety of sources.
All three evangelists, I hold, made it their single
aim to give their readers everything trustworthy
which they could collect. The common idea, that
they picked and selected what was specially adapted
to their readers, I most confidently reject. The
simple fact that S. Matthew's Gospel — the Gospel
of the Eastern Church —has always been more
popular amongst Gentile Christians than S. Luke's
— the Gospel of the West —upsets this most erroneous
notion. I cannot doubt that S. Matthew would have
given much to include in his Gospel the parable of
the Prodigal Son, or that S. Luke would have given
still more for the history of the Syrophoenician
woman's daughter, for that is the only recorded case
of mercy granted by Christ to a Gentile,* and is
therefore the one fact by which his readers would
be most powerfully affected. He did not give it,
because he had never heard of it. It belongs to
the second edition of S. Peter's memoirs, which never

reached the West till the Gospels were written.
But though there was no conscious selection of

what was proper, the inevitable pressure of circum-
stances and locality must unconsciously have
moulded the development. S. Matthew's Gospel,
being built up in the East, deals with the inferiority
of the Law to the Gospel, the fulfilment of Scripture
in Christ, the guilt of the Jewish nation in crucifying
Him. It thus justifies and explains the destruction
of Jerusalem, which was the one event of Providence
which demanded explanation with the Jews.
If I wanted to describe the special features of
this Gospel, I should call it the proclamation of
Christianity amid the ruins of the Holy City. The
catechists, who gradually shaped it, had the coming
destruction before their eyes, and it was not finally
written until that destruction was an accomplished
fact.
S. Luke, on the other hand, felt very slightly the

* The centurion's servant (Matt, viii, 5-13; Luke vii. i-io) was
probably a Jew, and the centurion himself was certainly a proselyte.
pressure of this terrible tragedy. A Gentile himself,

whose work lay amongst Gentiles, he could view
with comparative equanimity the events which were
so overwhelming to his neighbours. For him the
universality of the Gospel, and its applicability to
all ages and nations, to the poor, the sick, the lost,
the dying, was the essential thing. Brought up
under S. Paul, he teems with the Pauline spirit.
And though he delights to colour his page with

details of Jewish ritual and Semitic thought, he does
so with the feelings of an artist, and not because
he cares for such trivialities in themselves. His
Gospel is the Gospel of humanity.
But if S. Matthew's Gospel and S. Luke's show
traces of progress in spiritual and intellectual under-
standing, S. John's does so sevenfold. His opening
verses reveal a depth of knowledge to which S. James
never attained. Not James would have
that S.
contradicted them, or doubted their truth. But it
is one thing to see truth when it is set before you ;
it is another to set it forth yourself There is such

a thing as latent knowledge. The grander the
truth, the more simple and obvious it is when once
enunciated ; but for all that it is long in coming.
"The Spirit divideth to every man severally as He
wills."
Isuppose no one now would hold that the Gospels

were written in a state of ecstasy that the evangelists,
;
scarcely conscious of what they were doing, held the

pen while the Holy Spirit directed it. Such crude
conceptions of inspiration are not favoured by Mr.
Halcombe nor by any other competent observer of
2i6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
the facts. We agree that the inspired writers give
what they had learned. I hold that they had learned
it after a long search. I believe that S. John's ideas
are clear, because they are the product of a life of
thought. he records them, must
Christ's speeches, as
not be regarded as verbatim reports, made as it were
by the help of a shorthand writer. What Christ
really said was, I maintain, often simpler and briefer.
The thought is Christ's, the clothing of it is S. John's.
The cast of the sentence, the choice of words, are
not seldom the evangelist's contribution. This is
proved by a strongly-marked style and a peculiar
vocabulary, not to be found in the synoptic writers.
The speeches and the narratives had been turned
over in his mind and reproduced In his oral teaching
for a generation. Every year they acquired some
new polish, some fresh illustration.He had repeated
them, till he did not sharply distinguish between the
original saying and the inspired commentary.
Indeed, these are perpetually mixed up. Sometimes
we can see the distinction, but oftener it eludes us
so completely is the interpretation blended with
the text.
This process demands time. Mr. Halcombe holds
that S. John's Gospel was completed, published, and
received as canonical a few weeks after the author
had been blindly asking, " Lord, dost Thou at this
time restore the kingdom to Israel?" I, on the
contrary, require at least several decades of ex-

perience, meditation, and prayer for the education
of the greatest of the evangelists.
I do not believe that it was easier to write a
Gospel than to write an Epistle. I deny that the

one was a mere effort of memory, the other the
product of thought. And, therefore, I cannot admit
that S. John when he followed S. Peter about as a
dumb companion,* never to our knowledge opening
his mouth, was engaged in composing or had already
completed and was known as the author of those
weighty chapters which have in many respects
given us a nobler conception of Christ than we can
gain from any other source, and have done more
to solace the sufferer than the other evangelists put
together.
Himself during His period of humiliation
If Christ
grew in as perceptibly as He grew in stature,
wisdom
and needed thirty years' meditation, study of
Scripture, and prayer before He broke silence,
much more did His youthful servant need experi-
ence and training before he commenced to write.
Pontius Pilate or Caiaphas might have given us a
life of Christ, which in many respects would have
been fuller and more correct, historically and legally,
than what the evangelists have given. We should
value such a document highly for critical purposes,
but it would not have been a Gospel. And why?
The consecrated thought would not have been there ;
the sympathetic insight, which we define as inspi-

ration, would not have discerned the treasure which
should bless ages unborn.
It is impossible to separate S. John's Gospel from
his first Epistle. To say that the Epistle was written
as a preface to the Gospel is perhaps going too far,
* So he in variably appears in Acts iii.-viii.

but the two works teem with the same ideas, and
can hardly have been written at very different
epochs. Now the tone of the Epistle is sad. It
speaks of antagonism. The struggle against opposing

forces is constant and severe. But in the first years
of Christianity the apostles were triumphant. The
people magnified them. The attempts of the rulers
and the Sadducees to crush them failed because
they were the heroes of the hour. Their converts
were numbered by thousands. They carried every-
thing before them. The Master's triumphant return
was their daily expectation.
In a few years this state of things began to change.
S. Stephen was martyred by a mob acting under
lynch law. A general persecution followed, and the
brethren were scattered. A little later Herod
Agrippa I. slew S. James the son of Zebedee. This
brutal murder brought him so much popularity that
he resolved to strike a blow at the ringleader,
S. Peter. It was long before the Roman authorities
were aroused, but they were aroused at last, and then

the outlook was black indeed.
Now if S. John wrote, as Mr. Halcombe says, in
the earliest days of Christianity, he would have been
more or than human, if his writings had not
less
triumph of the moment. They must
reflected the
have been inspired with hope and the sense of
coming victory. But, on the contrary, they are
permeated with gloom, and with the feeling that
though not crushed, or capable of being crushed,
yet the revelation of Christ in many quarters was
not making way. And this is true of the Gospel
as much as of the Epistle. Look, for example, at

the use which S. John makes of that word, " the
world," in both of them. It is not a new word.
S. Mark uses it twice; S. Luke three times in his
Gospel, and once in the Acts of the Apostles.
SS. Peter, Paul, Matthew, James, and the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews employ it still more
frequently. But with S. John it is a keyword. He
repeats it twenty-one times in the Epistle, seventy-
eight times in the Gospel. And its meaning has
been deepened. S. Luke spoke of all the kingdoms
of the world. S. Paul teaches that the world by
nature knew not God. But with
John the king- S.
dom of the world is kingdom
the antithesis of the
of God. Ignorance has been succeeded by active
hatred. No compromise is possible. "We are of
God, and the whole world lieth in the evil one."
This is the result of ripe experience. This is a
sign that the power of Rome was stirring itself
Tertullian thought it impossible for the Roman
emperors ever to become Christian. His opinion
was the natural, if too literal, deduction from the
teaching of S. John.
Again, the fulfilment of Scripture by Christ was
an engrossing study in the first ages. It was the
subject of endless discussion with the Jews. But
it was not merely a weapon to confute or persuade
them ; it was one of the strongest means of

establishing the Christians themselves, both Jews
and Gentiles, in the faith. S. Peter began the
investigation on the day of Pentecost, and it was
continued not only in the East, as S. Matthew's
Gospel but by S. Paul in his Epistles, by
testifies,
S. Luke Acts of the Apostles, in S. Peter's

in the
First Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
S. John draws attention to four fulfilments, which
are not expressly noticed elsewhere. They all
relate to the passion, and all occur in the nineteenth

chapter. (i) They parted My garments among
them, and upon My vesture did they cast lots.
(2) When I was thirsty, they gave Me vinegar to
drink. (3) A bone thereof shall not be broken.
(4) They shall look on Him whom they pierced.
S. Mark knows nothing of these fulfilments. Some
of them, especially the third, are so recondite that
they are not likely to have been discovered in the
primitive times.
S. John not only gives the incident of the drawing
of a sword and cutting off the high priest's domestic
servant's ear on the night of the arrest, but says
that S. Peter committed the outrage and Malchus
suffered it. If both men were dead, there could
be no harm in publishing their names. Otherwise
some trouble might be apprehended, or why did
the synoptists suppress the information?
S. John, after completing his Gospel, added
another chapter by way of supplement. The object
was to correct a false opinion which was current,
that his own exemption from death had been pre-
dicted by he felt death to be drawing
Christ. If
near, we can understand his anxiety to remove a
stumbling-block from the faith of his friends. But
if he wrote immediately after the Ascension, what
time had there been for the rumour to spread, and

what probability that it was not correct? It was

an inference, an extension, of Christ's words, but
at least a very reasonable extension. Lapse of time
alone was showing it to be false, and lapse of time
alone justified S. John in interpreting so positively
our Lord's obscure words respecting S. Peter. For
the prophecy, " When
thou wast young, thou girdedst
thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest but ;
when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and

carry thee whither thou wouldest not," does not on
the face of it point to martyrdom. Only after
S. death could S. John have unreservedly
Peter's
explained it so. Again, look for a moment at the
form of the sentence " This spake He, signifying
:
by what death he should glorify God." How un-

natural to write thus of the departure of your
dearest friend, if he was still by your side. How
natural if the severance had taken place five years
or upwards. There is joy for the comrade who has
entered upon his rest, thankfulness that the fiery
trialhas ended in triumph, regret that such honour
should be denied to himself Here is a typical
specimen of S. John's style. The simplest words
teem with the deepest meaning.
It appears from 2, xi. 18, xviii. 40, and
v. 2, vii.
other passages, Gospel was written for

that the
foreigners and persons unacquainted with Jewish
customs and Jewish topography. It cannot, there-
fore, have been written in the first days when
S. John himself lived In Jerusalem, and almost the
whole of the Church was resident in that city.
Indeed, if written then, it would most certainly
have been written in Aramaic.
It is objected that if S. John wrote after the
destruction of Jerusalem he ought not to have said,
"There is in Jerusalem at the sheep (gate) a pool
. . . with five porches." " There was " would have
been the necessary word. No doubt the five porches

were destroyed, and the pool filled up with the
rubbish. But S. John had never visited the city
since its destruction. He may not have known the
full extent of the demolition. was natural for It
the old man to picture the scene as he remembered

it in happier days. It is characteristic of great age
to live in the distant past. I cannot regard this
as an insuperable difficulty.
The theory which underlies the
of inspiration
views advocated in this paper may seem to some
people subversive of belief. I have not found it so.
It may make belief more difficult, but it seems to
be more in accord with the facts, and therefore in
the long-run preserves faith by preventing a conflict
with reason.
God's way of revealing Himself is never exactly
what we have expected. He chooses to
should
employ human agents with all their weakness and
liability to make mistakes. Inspiration quickens
their spiritual perception, but does not altogether
preserve them from errors of fact. ^'
Christ might
have written down His own message for us on
some sheets of vellum which could have been
legible to this day. Nay, the phonograph might
have been invented before the fulness of time came,
* See, for example, Matt. i. 9, II ; Mark ii. 26; Luke ii. 2;
John xii. 3 ; Acts v. 36, vii. 16.
that we might still hear for ourselves the Sermon

on the Mount in the very tones with which it was
delivered. But by granting none of these things,
God seems to warn us against putting our trust in
the flesh. After all, we are not saved by the Gospels,
but by Christ.
III.
Mr. Halcombe claims to have settled the Gospel

difficulties by putting S. John first, retaining the
other Gospels in the common order, but dissecting
and reconstructing S. Luke. He is satisfied that
he has succeeded, and points out in proof that any-
one, after mastering his "constructive principles,"
could tell at sight from which Gospel any particular
section came, without any previous knowledge of the
Gospels.
So of old the Ptolemaic astronomers insisted that
they must be right in making the earth the centre
of the universe, and the sun a satellite revolving
round the earth, because they could account on this
supposition for all the motions of the heavenly bodies.
Their system of cycles and epicycles, processions and
recessions, was beautifully complete. Were they not
able to predict an eclipse ? Moreover, the circle was
a perfect figure, worthy of the divine perfection of the
Creator, incomparably superior to the battered and
distorted ellipse.
It is easy to construct a System. If you carefully
analyse and arrange the facts, leaving nothing out of
consideration and exaggerating nothing, it will be
impossible to refute you. The question is, whether
your system is and capable of
natural, self-evident,
asserting its own truth, or amass of improbabilities,
strung together in defiance of law and habit and
ascertained fact.
Copernicus maintained that the sun was the centre

of the solar system. Galileo supported him. Kepler
discovered the laws of the motions in an ellipse.
Newton hit upon the idea of gravity. Gradually
an easy and natural explanation of the movements
of the heavenly bodies was produced, and the result
is that no one now believes in the Ptolemaic system,
or anyone occasionally advocates a return to it, he
if
gets no hearing from scientific men.

Mr. Halcombe himself seems to be astonished
at the "constructive principles" on which the
evangelists, accordingto his theory, worked. He
admits that no other books were ever composed on
such literary rules. To my mind it is a sufficient
refutation of his scheme that it would be just as
easy and far more natural to adopt TertuUian's
order in reality, and put S. Mark last instead of
third. Then, at least, we should secure symmetry.
We should say that S. John came first and gathered
the choicest Matthew reaped the second
fruit, S.
crop, and S. Luke the third but S. Mark was ;
too late for the harvest, and was compelled to be

content with the gleanings.
My advice to the student is, Try a simpler plan.
Give up the idea that inspiration sets aside the
laws of human thought. Look at a parallel case.
Inspiration was promised by Christ Himself to the
apostles for their speeches. " Do not premeditate
... it shall be given you at the moment what ye

shall speak. It is not you that speak, but the
Holy That I fully accept and believe.
Spirit."
Nevertheless, on examining those speeches of the
apostles which have been preserved, and which
may therefore be assumed to be in a special
manner inspired, I do not find them faultless. Take
S. Paul's speech before Ananias and the Sanhedrin.
(Acts xxiii.) The commencement, " Brethren, I have
lived with a perfectly good conscience before God
until this appears to me to be singularly
day,"
deficient in the meekness and gentleness of Christ.
The abusive epithet, " You whitewashed wall," seems
too insulting for a Christian to use towards any
man it gave the bystanders an opportunity of
;
retort, of which they made full and effective use.

The appeal to party rancour, "I am a Pharisee,
the pupil of a Pharisee I am on my trial for the
;
hope of the resurrection of the dead," was I allude —

—
to the last clause untrue in fact and unjustifiable in
intent The apostle himself admitted this when the
excitement was over. (xxiv. 21.) " Compassed with in-
firmity" is our verdict on him in his speeches. Human
nature is there with its faults as well as its virtues.
The same human nature may be perceived when
he took his pen in hand. That it was a noble nature,
towering high above ordinary men, I strongly main-
tain. But it was not perfect. Inspiration quickened
S. Paul's perception of truth, but it did not protect
him from faults of temper, nor from using bad
grammar, broken sentences, questionable logic, and
inexact quotations.
Q
And cannot be gainsaid, why should we
if this
think with Mr. Halcombe that "the Gospels, as

first given to men, exhibited a perfect unity of
design and execution"? Why should we believe

that "their parts may be as nicely adjusted to each
Nasmyth hammer " ?
other as the machinery of the
Was human agency employed in their produc-
not
tion? And where men are employed, will there
not always be an element of imperfection? Or
what did S. Paul mean when he wrote, "We have
this treasure in earthen vessels, that the exceeding
greatness of its power may be of God " ?
If Mr. Halcombe's "constructive principles" require

S. Luke to have written certain parts of his Gospel in
a way in which no man ever wrote before or since,
the conclusion which I should draw is that the con-
structive principles are wrong.
Put the sun into the centre of the solar system.
Put S. Mark first among the evangelists. All will
then become plain. S. Mark will be restored to
his real post of honour. Instead of being a
miserable epitomizer of S. Matthew, afraid to copy
anything which possessed high spiritual value, he
is S. Peter's faithful interpreter, the pioneer in
producing the noblest works with which God has
been pleased to enrich the Church. S. Matthew and
S. Luke are beholden to him for the historical frame-
work of their Gospels. It was their task to collect
new matter, and incorporate it with the old.
The first principle which I lay down is this, that
the original telling of a story will be the fullest
and most picturesque. Later repetitions will give
the essential points of the story in less rugged dic-

tion, but will curtail and confuse the circumstantial
details.
That this principle is true in ordinary life needs
no proof. But in the Gospels the case is not quite
the same. The story was not merely told, but
learned by heart and frequently repeated. The
habits of the time made this compulsory. We
shall never understand the growth of the Gospels
unless we realise the pains taken to give every
Christian child (and every adult, as far as he was
capable of receiving it) an education in the faith,
according to the ordinary methods of the day, by
making him commit long passages to memory.
Still,though the process of reducing the bulk of
material would be carried on at a slower rate under
these safeguards, it would be in constant operation.
The catechist would unconsciously yield to the
pressure of circumstances. Why should he burden
his pupil's memory with details, to the exclusion of
important matters? Why names of persons
give
and places in which the could take no
learner
interest, rather than great principles which would
guide him through life? In the course of forty
years the shrinkage in narrative would be great
all the greater because newly-added parables and
discourses were always swelling the lessons, and
compelling the catechist to find space for them by
abbreviating the original records.
Now the process of Gospel formation was carried
on simultaneously in two districts, which were jealous
of each other, and seldom held intercommunications.
The Eastern catechists, centred round Jerusalem, pro-
duced, as I hold, in oral form, S. Matthew's Gospel,
under his guidance and with his contributions the ;
Western catechists, under S. Paul, produced the third

Gospel, of which one of them, S. Luke, became
ultimately the writer. Both sets of catechists started
with S. Mark's version of S. Peter's Memoirs (except
that S. Luke received about two-thirds of it only),
and grafted into it such additional records as they
from time to time obtained from S. Matthew or other
sources.
Both of them unconsciously and gradually altered
S. Mark's teaching, not only by reducing its bulk,
but by modifying its statements. But they did this
differently, according to their national proclivities.
The Jews were strict in adhering to the facts, but
contemptuous of picturesque ornament. The Gentiles
loved the picturesque, but were not so careful of the
facts.
If, then, we strike out of S. Matthew and S. Luke

all the verses which have no parallel in S. Mark, and
then compare what is left of them with S. Mark and
with each other, we shall find, if I am right, that
S. Mark is always the fullest, and that of the others
S. Matthew's is shortest, but seldom contradicts S.
Mark ; S. Luke's is of medium length, but more
frequently contradicts S. Mark. Above all, when-
ever S. Matthew and S. Luke support one another,
S. Mark must agree with them when they contradict
;
one another, S. Markagree with one of

will usually
them against the something from which
other, or give
both the divergent statements have been derived.
MR: HALCOMBE'S STRICTURES 229
This would be true absolutely if S. Mark had

written Gospel at the first, and if the East
his
and West held no communications with each other.
Instead of that, S. Mark did not write for about
forty years. During that time the records were
dwelling in mind, and were continually pro-
his
duced in his catechetical teaching. They were
therefore reduced in bulk and altered in form like
the rest, only this process was very much slower
than with the other Gospels, because one man's
memory does not make so many changes as are
made if a story passes through the minds and
memories of from six to twelve.
It is not denied that all this has been done
only Mr. Halcombe gives a different and (as I
think) impossible account of how it was done.

Instead of following the natural and self-evident
plan which I have sketched, he proposes another.
He holds that S. Matthew wrote first of the three
that S. Mark took his Gospel, struck out of it all
those passages which he thought too good for himself

to touch or for his readers to know, and then pro-
ceeded to amplify the residuum. Where S. Matthew
had used six words he expanded them to ten or
twelve. Such a process in ordinary literature pro-
duces prosy and insipid narratives. But here the
effect was the opposite. Not a word is unnecessary
or out of place. The dry bones of S. Matthew's
jejune chronicles have been clothed with flesh.
In the next place, S. Luke, Mr. Halcombe teaches,

took both the Gospels, but, having a less humble
estimate of himself than S. Mark had shown, retained
a number of the more valuable sections. For the
rest,he picked one word from S. Matthew, the next
from S. Mark, the third was his own. Yet, instead
of producing a patchwork, the result was homo-
geneous. The world has decided that his Greek
is more classical than that of the others. Not a
sentence is out of place, not a word is superfluous.
"Dovetailing" does not usually turn out so well.

If anyone doubts this, let him read Tatian's Dia
Tessaron. But then Tatian had some respect for
and could not bring himself to alter
his authorities,
or omit a sentence from any one of them. S. Luke,
according to the documentary hypothesis, had no
such scruples. Though he was not an eye-
witness, but derived his information second-hand,
he capriciously altered it without misgiving. Wit-
ness his account (in the Revised Version) of the
new cloth and the old garment. (Luke v. 36 = Mark ii.
21 = Matt. ix. Such wanton levity I cannot
16.)
attribute to S. Luke, and therefore I cling to the
oral hypothesis, which preserves the evangelists'
character, by denying that any of them had had
the advantage of seeing the Gospel of his fellows.
S. Luke's chief object in writing was, Mr. Halcombe
teaches, to correct S. Matthew's chronology, which is
confessedly wrong, and is supposed to have been
causing doubt in the Church. Now S. Luke corrects
it by following almost invariably Mark. If he had
S.
told his pupils that in matters of chronology S. Mark,
when he differs from S. Matthew, is always right,
would not that have sufficed? It would seem so,
for observe the final issue of his labours. No sooner
was his perfect adjustment of chronology pubHshed,

than some enemy, according to Mr. Halcombe, spoilt
it all. A malicious, or well-meaning but ill-informed,
person secured S. Luke's manuscript, and transposed
about a couple of chapters, with the result that Gospel
difficulties have troubled the Church ever since, until
Mr. Halcombe discovered the fraud.
Papias tells us that S. Mark's chronology is wrong.
If so, S. Matthew and S. Luke, who, I maintain,
follow it as almost their only guide, must be wrong
also.* This is, I believe, the true account of the
matter. The question is fundamental. If I am
right, Mr. Halcombe and the harmonists have spent
years of exhausting labour to very little purpose.
The Gospels, were put together originally for
I say,
convenience of Church lessons, with only slight regard
for chronological sequence. S. Mark arranged the
sections in their present order, and not S. Peter.
S. Mark had not the knowledge, even if he had the
desire, to secure the correct sequence.
Whether S. Luke, when he promised in his preface
to "write in order," meant chronological order or

not we cannot The words in themselves
decide.
are ambiguous. A
hundred beads lying on a table
at random are not arranged in order. Put them
on a string and they become sa If you arrange
them carefully with regard to colour, you have a
better claim to have put them in order. But if
you prefer to arrangethem according to size, who
will deny that you have kept your promise.? So
if S. Luke strung together the sections of the
* See Composition of the Four Gospels^ pp. 21-24, M^*
Gospels with suitable prefaces and conclusions, as
he has done, he wrote "in order." The Greek
word which he uses (/caOe^^?) merely means "strung
in a row." If he put them into chronological order,
he did better still. But if he put them in the most
convenient order for Church services, he has surely
done well enough. Even if he intended to write
in chronological order (which is very far from
certain), we have no reason to suppose that in-
spiration would prove an infallible guide in such
a matter, or that it was possible at that date for
a man in his position to arrive at the real sequence
of events. If true chronology was necessary for the
Church, would not God's providence have prevented
such a perversion of it as Mr. Halcombe supposes?
It is a poor thing to say that the Gospels once were
perfect, if we can only do so by maintaining that they
were corrupted immediately.
IV.
But, to turn to another point of the inquiry, when

a man writes in a foreign language he is apt to use
the idioms of his mother tongue.
AFrenchman seldom writes idiomatic English.
When he attempts to do so, an Englishman who
knows French can generally detect a multitude of
French idioms underlying the English words. Much
more in days of old, when a Jew undertook to write
Greek, was he likely to introduce Semitic idioms into
his work, especially if that work was a translation
from Aramaic. Semitic languages co-ordinate rather
than subordinate their sentences. The conjunction

" and " occurs with monotonous frequency. S. John's
Gospel is a good example of this. "And," "there-
fore," "because," have almost driven out the rich
array of Hellenic connecting particles ; and this
because the apostle thinks in Aramaic, though he
writes in Greek. Now S. Mark was S. Peter's inter-
preter, to translate (as have shown) his Aramaic
I
lessons for the Greek catechumens, not (as is com-

monly supposed) to translate S. Peter's Greek into
Latin. " And " is his favourite conjunction. One of
the strongest internal arguments against the genuine-
ness of the last twelve verses is the sudden reduction
in the frequency of this word.
But S. Mark has another peculiarity. To connect
narratives he writes " straightway." Forty-one times
does this word occur. It is apparently a mannerism,
arising from want of literary skill in securing variety.
S. Matthew makes short work with this " straight-
way." S. Luke in nearly every instance gets rid of
it. And so their style is improved ; there is less
monotony and tediousness.
It is an axiom in such cases that the crude and
uncouth shall come first. S. Mark's translation was
used by the other Greek catechists, but every one of
them would contribute something to improve it, until
it reaches its most polished form in S. Luke's edition.
The oldest form of the Gospel is that which is fullest
in matter, but rudest in expression.

So far we have dealt with broad principles. Now
I will give two petty details, to confirm what has
been said.
All the evangelists use a certain number of Latin
words, connected most part with Roman
for the
money, law, or military rule. Such words were
necessarily current in countries which were under
Roman government, but to introduce them into a
Greek treatise was a disfigurement. It was false in
art and offensive to correct taste. Now S. Mark uses
the Latin centurio for a centurion. He so writes it
three times in the fifteenth chapter. But S. Matthew

and S. Luke substitute for it the Greek equivalent,
eKaTovrdpxm- According to Mr. Halcombe's view,
S. Mark found the correct Greek word in S. Matthew's
Gospel, and deliberately altered it into the incorrect.
This, I submit, is incredible.
Again, the word " man " is frequently expressed in
Aramaic by the phrase "son of man." Thus in
John 6 the Peshito Syriac gives, " There was a son
i.
of man sent from God, whose name was John." This

expression was unknown to Greek authors, and
would mislead the Greek reader. Now in Mark iii. 28
it is written, " Verily I say unto you that all things
shall be forgiven to //ze sons of metty their sins and the

blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme."
This in S. Matthew's parallel (xii. 31) becomes,
" Wherefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy
shall be forgiven to men " (for which the Peshito, of
course, gives " to the sons of men "). Here S. Mark,
translating S. Peter's Aramaic, has evidently repro-
duced the Aramaic idiom instead of substituting the
proper Greek equivalent, but some Greek catechist
has seen the mistake and corrected it. According to
Mr. Halcombe, however, S. Mark found the correct
idiom in S. Matthew, and deliberately, without reason,

substituted for it the unintelligible Aramaic idiom.
This also I consider to be incredible.
I could bring forward some cogent proofs to show
that S. Luke had never read S. Matthew's Gospel
but I prefer to ask my readers to study the question
for themselves. Let them take the first two chapters
of S. Matthew, and endeavour to fit them into the first
two chapters of S. Luke, so as to secure a continuous

history of what really happened. Let them do this
honestly, without consulting a commentary or a
harmony, and if they have a strong sense of historical
truth, they will see that neither of these writers was
acquainted with what his fellow had written.
Harmonists appear to me to have no hesitation in
putting a strain upon our sense of truth, in order
to secure the " inerrancy " of Holy Scripture.
Thus in the case of S. Peter's denials, according
to Mr. Halcombe's view, S. John was the first to
write an account of what happened. He did so
within a few weeks of the events, when everything
was fresh in his memory. He knew that our Lord
had twice predicted S. Peter's fall, that S. Peter
had been guilty of six denials, and that the cock
crew twice. Instead, however, of giving us the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he has
recorded the first prediction, the first, third, and
fourth denials, and the first cock - crowing. What
reason can be given for his suppressing one-half of
the incidents? We
know of none that will bear
examination.
Shortly afterwards S. Matthew, knowing the
whole truth, and having S. John's Gospel before
him, deliberately suppressed one-half of the truth,
and gave us only what his brother apostle had
omitted. Again we ask, Why should he have done
this? and we are referred to the principles on
which he is held to have constructed his Gospel,
which principles we do not admit.
Soon afterwards S. Mark, with the two Gospels
before him, wrote an account in which he followed
S. Matthew in selecting the prediction and the
denials, but recorded both the cock-crowings (there
are great textual of which Mr.
difficulties here,
Halcombe takes no
and altered S.
account),
Matthew's simple expression "wept bitterly" into
a word the meaning of which has never been
cleared up. Some translate, " He buried his face
in his mantle and wept " ; others, " He wept pro-
fusely " ; He began to weep
others, "
" ; others,
"When he thought thereon, he wept." Is it not
more probable that S. Matthew altered S. Mark's
obscure word into a simple one than that S. Mark
altered Matthew's lucid phrase into an incom-
S.
prehensible one? I should say that the priority of
S. Mark is much supported by this one case.

And whence did S. Mark learn about the
*' twice"? Did our Lord really speak the word, S.
Peter recollect it, and S. Mark record it, though
other catechists let it drop, as I hold? Or did S.
Mark infer from the context that He must have
spoken it? And if S. Mark was indeed so anxious
to put the narrative right on the smaller matter,
why did he not correct " thrice " into *'
six times,"
and give us the six denials ? Or did he not perceive

that there were six ?
S. Luke comes next, and having the three Gospels
will surely at last give us the whole truth. Not so.
He picks and chooses in a bewildering way, following
S. John in recording the first prediction and the
third denial, but in other particulars preferring S.
Matthew.
And why is this improbable doubling of inci-
dents, which not even Tatian allows, forced upon

us ? Because " standing and sitting are not the same
thing " because one narrative has, " Woman, I know
;
Him not" another, " Man, I am not." For the sake

;
of these, and a few other minute differences, the four-

fold "thrice" is disregarded, the fourfold narratives
are declared to be half the truth. Historical proba-
Yet such a protest
bility yields to verbal precision.
against the worship of verbal accuracy do inspired
writers make, that the Shemd, which every pious Jew
in our Lord's time is believed to have repeated daily,
is given in four different forms by three evangelists,
but not once correctly. (Mark xii. 30, 33 ; Matthew
xxii. 37 ; Luke x. 27.) It may be expected that
every Jew would know the names of the twelve
tribes, yet a list of them is given in the Apocalypse
in which Joseph and Manasseh are put instead of
Ephraim and Manasseh, Levi is inserted though he
had no lot with his brethren, Dan is excluded. (Rev.
vii. 5-8.) Facts like these meet us everywhere when
we undertake a careful study of the New Testament,
and they warn us against believing in verbal inspira-
tion. If we do, our faith will receive a shock every
time it encounters a difficulty, a shock from which
I would fain rescue the devout reader. Verbal
inspiration has been generally surrendered, not
because it is impossible, for of that we do not
profess to judge, but because it is not supported
by the evidence.
Again, one of the most strongly-marked narra-
tives in the Gospels is, I should say, the healing of
blind Bartimaeus. It is narrated by all the synoptists
in almost identical words. Yet because S. Matthew
speaks of two men, while S. Mark and S. Luke only
mention one, and because S. Luke puts the encounter
at the entrance into Jericho, though S. Mark, in a
singularly tautological sentence, which would naturally
lead to confusion, puts it on the departure from that
city, Mr. Halcombe is compelled by his principles to
maintain that four blind men were healed on three

separate occasions. All four cried out, " Thou son of
David," an unusual phrase, not found in S. Mark
or S. Luke in any other miracle. In every case the
multitudes bade them to be silent. In every case
they cried the more or the louder. In every case
Jesus put the question, " What wilt thou that I should
do ? " In every case, after receiving sight, they
followed Jesus on the way.
Mr. Halcombe has some misgivings. In his second
volume he speaks doubtfully of the multiplication of
this miracle. have not seen the second edition
I
of his first volume, and cannot

tell whether he there
completes the retractation. If he does not, why does

he not insist that S. Matthew's narrative of the
Gerasene demoniacs is distinct from S. Mark's and
S. For not only did the one take place

Luke's?
Matthew two
at Gadara, the other at Gerasa, but in S.
men were healed, in S. Mark and S. Luke only one.
The chronology also is different. Dr. Stanley
Leathes more courageous. He holds that the
is
Gadarene and Gerasene miracles were quite distinct,

and that on two separate occasions a herd of swine
rushed down the steep and were choked in the
lake,* a necessary conclusion if " inerrancy " is to be
maintained.
But Mr. Halcombe insists that the Gospels are not
fragmentary but complete records. He has divided
them into 364 sections, and is confident that our
Lord's ministry lasted four years, neither more nor
less. Now 31 of the sections apply to the period
before our Lord's ministry began, or to the ministry
of the Baptist; so only 333 remain for Christ, of
which S. John records 102. In four years there
are 1461 days, and Christ did or said some ministerial
thing on 333 out of 1461 days. He was therefore
silent on three days out of four, and did not lead the
life of incessant toil which Christians have fondly
imagined. The work of the second year consists of
fifteen incidents only. Is not the mere statement of
this fact a sufficient refutation? (John xxi. 25.)
I have considered already t the very difficult
question of the duration of our Lord's ministry, and
my conclusions do not agree with Mr. Halcombe's.
The critical study of the Gospels demands more
attention from English Biblical students than it has
* See The Churchman, December, 1892, p. 121.
t See p. 185.
hitherto received. It is a fascinating pursuit in itself,
and one that leads to most important consequences.

It makes the Gospels easier to understand, and pro-
tects us from treating them arbitrarily. In the

infancy of the new science alarmingly destructive
results were obtained, which appeared to threaten
the foundations of the faith. There are still writers
who advocate what I consider false views. They can
only be met by diligent and honest examination of
the facts. The truth has nothing to fear. The higher
criticism, when applied without partiality or distortion
of the evidence, strongly supports the general trust-
worthiness of the Gospels. It proves that the
essential points are those best attested ; but it also
proves, what most scholars have already learned from
other that what is called verbal inspiration must
facts,
be given up.
The Gospels do not preserve the exact utterances
of Christ. One example may suffice to prove this.
S. Mark writes that our Lord said to the Syro-
phoenician woman, " For this saying go thy way, the
demon is gone out of thy daughter." But S. Matthew
writes, " O woman, great is thy faith be it unto thee ;
even as thou wilt." Shall we, after the manner of

Tatian, piece these sentences together and maintain
that Christ said, " woman, great is thy faith for ;
this saying, go thy way be it unto thee even as thou

;
wilt ; the demon is gone out of thy daughter." This

on the Nasmyth hammer hypothesis is, of course,
possible. But does any serious historian suppose that
Christ was guilty of such verbosity ? My solution of
the difficulty is this We do not know the exact
:
words which Christ used. S. Mark gives us what

S. Peter recollected of them. But the catechists of
Jerusalem, aware that S. Peter's words in this case
were capable of a false interpretation as though the —
girl had been cured by her mother's merit and not by
her mother's faith— took upon themselves to alter the

phrase in the interests of truth. Their doing so,
presumptuous as it must appear to the traditional
exegete, proves that the primitive Christians, under
the guidance of the apostles, were not such slaves of
the letter as modern commentators would make them.
The same observation I hold to be true of nearly
every saying of Christ. Even where three evan-
gelists agree verbatim, as they very seldom do for
more than six or seven words together, the only safe
conclusion is that they have reproduced S. Peter's
recollections with greater accuracy than usual. And
if the substance rather than the letter of Christ's
words is given us, why should we suppose that less
important matters —as dates —are
be trusted? to
S. John says that the anointing at Bethany took
place six days before the passover, S. Mark two
days. S. Matthew says that while Christ was speak-
ing the parable of the new wine in the old bottles
Jairus came to announce that his daughter was dead.
S. Mark and S. Luke say that Jairus came several
months after this, according to Mr. Halcombe's own
chronology, and announced that his daughter was
living, but in extremis. Are these discrepancies
" superficial appearances," or clear indications that
the adjustments of the Nasmyth hammer are not
to be expected ?
R
God, I repeat, has been pleased to employ human
agents for making known the truth. "We know
in part " might have been said by the evangelists as
much as by S. Paul. The diversities in their narra-
tives prove that they did not possess, and therefore
could not bequeath to us, a perfect record of Christ's
words and deeds. We have what
His God in
providence has been pleased to give have us. We
records which exhibit the belief of whole Churches
in the primitive days. They have sufficed for
Christians in all days. They will suffice for us, in
the power of the same Spirit who inspired the men
that wrote them, and is ready to inspire us to under-
stand them, to the saving of our souls.
XVI.
THEORIES OF MESSRS. BADHAM

AND JOLLEY*
THESE books have little in common, except a

belief that the oral hypothesis does not
account for the origin of the synoptic Gospels.
Mr. Badham does not concern himself about the
oral hypothesis. He is satisfied with documents
and redactors. Mr. Jolley is more reasonable. He
admits that for forty years (oral) tradition, together
with personal reminiscences, supplied the wants of
the Churches. He admits that the (oral) tradition
grew larger as the personal reminiscences grew less,
until, on the death of the last eye-witness, our
written Gospels superseded both. But Mr. Badham

does not take account of those forty years. Until
the document appeared close
first — upon 70 A.D.
he leaves the whole question to silence.
Yet surely forty years, in which the number of
Christians amounted to myriads, and Churches,
each with its c}ê of oral teaching, were estab-
lished in most fferts of the inhabited world, would
* The Formation of the Gospels, By F. P. Badham, M.A. 2nd

Edition. London : 1892.
The Synoptic Problem for English Readers,. By ALFRED J,
Jolley. London: 1892.
243
exercise a preponderating influence upon the forma-
tion of the Gospels. Tradition, I beheve, was neither
so vague nor so fluctuating as some persons have
imagined. It had a distinct source in S. Peter's
teaching —not his "preaching," as Mr. Badham
says. On that point turns the whole controversy.
Preaching varies. New subjects drive out the old,
or if sometimes the same story is told, it is told
in different Our Gospels could not have
words.
been formed in that way. The very existence of
the catechists proves that a compact body of
lessons was drawn up, which they taught to the
catechumens. Those who had mastered these
lessons became catechists themselves, and carried
the same teaching into every corner of the Roman
world.
Thus S. Peter's Memoirs formed a framework
into which, from time to time, the personal reminis-
cences of other witnesses were worked. In every
Church the Gospel must have had peculiarities
oral
of its own, but at the end of forty years a broad
distinction lay between the tradition of the East
and that of the West.
Our three Gospels are the final result. S. Mark's
is neutral, giving little besides S. Peter's teaching.
S. Matthew's gives the same teaching, enriched
by the accumulations of the East. S. Luke has
gathered materials from every available source.
Having no knowledge of the subject himself, he
has been a diligent collector. Aramaic documents,
fragments of the Logia^ and new contributions are
worked up into one remarkable whole.
MESSRS. BADHAM AND JOLLEY 245
The supreme advantage

oral hypothesis has the
of making each evangelist give us all that he knew.
He did not pick and choose from an enormous

mass of floating amorphous matter; nor did he,
by a free use of scissors and paste, patch together
cuttings from a number of lengthy documents but, ;
as a faithful historian, he recorded all that he could

collect. And his work was not originally intended
for the use of the Church Catholic, but (as S. Luke
plainly says in his preface) for the local congrega-
tion, whose oral Gospel he had committed to writing.
After these preliminary remarks, let us proceed
to our task. Professor Stanton wrote for the

Expositor oi March, 1893, respecting Dr. B. Weiss's
theory of the Gospels, "Weiss does not appear to
have made any converts. There is an arbitrariness
about the explanations offered by this theory which
renders it very unattractive." Before the number
was published a convert was forthcoming. Mr.
Jolley has accepted Dr. Weiss's views, and made
them the basis of this book.
According to Mark's Gospel was
his theory (i) S.
used by the other two evangelists. Mr. Badham
denies this. So, of course, do those who hold the
oral hypothesis. I think that it is refuted by an
examination of the proper names in S. Mark.
Under oral teaching I should expect a large pro-
portion of those proper names to be gradually
riddled and lost, especially in the Gentile
out
Churches for what wise teacher would burden the
;
memory of his pupils with foreign names in which

they could take no interest? But if an historian
like S. Luke had S. Mark's written Gospel before
him, I should expect that, whatever else he
neglected, he would preserve the whole of the
proper names, for names and dates are the back-
bone of history. Well, how does the matter stand ?
I find that out of eighty-six proper names in

S. Mark, twenty-five, and these the rarest and
most interesting to an historian, have disappeared
from S. Luke's parallel passages.
(2) S. Matthew and S. Luke wrote independently,
and were not acquainted with each other's Gospels.
Mr. Jolley has no difficulty in showing this by com-
paring Matt, i., ii. with Luke i., ii. ; but Mr. Badham
is forced by his theory to hold that S. Luke had
Matt, i., ii. from which it was
(or rather the source
taken) before him when he
In proof of this wrote.
he submits, amongst other considerations, that "the
star in the east" (6 aarrhp ev rri avardXri) "is surely
alluded to in the Day-spring" {avarokn) "from on
high ... to guide our feet into the way of peace"!
(3) All three evangelists drew largely upon an
earlier document which has perished. This docu-
ment, commonly called the Logia^ is styled by Mr.
Jolley the Primitive Gospel, or for brevity P.G.
He restores it on the lines of Dr. Weiss, and prints
an English version of it at full length. It con-
stitutes the main feature of his book, and he
demands for it the patient examination which it
is sure to get at the hand of scholars.
I reserve my
remarks on P.G. for the present, and
pass on to describe how Mr. Jolley holds our three
Gospels to have originated, (i) S. Mark wrote down
what he recollected of S. Peter's teachings, combin-

ing with it certain portions of P.G. Out of his 666
verses, I reckon that, according to Mr. Jolley,
427 are Petrine, and 239 come from P.G. (2) S.
—
Matthew's Gospel I call it so for convenience it ;
is really a composite work, as Messrs. Badham and
—
Jolley agree in thinking is built, Mr. Jolley holds,
upon S. Mark, with much more copious extracts
from P.G., some personal reminiscences and tradi-
tions, "the latter of which are not always
trustworthy." (3) S. Luke not only used S. Mark
and P.G., but also a document unknown to the
other evangelists, and of Ebionite tendency. Out
of S. Luke's 1 15 1 verses it certainly supplies 212,
probably 218, possibly 313. But this is not all; in
the history of the Passion and Resurrection it is
largely used in combination with S. Mark. It may
give some idea of this document to state that,
according to Mr. Jolley, S. Luke's two introductory
chapters come from it; so do the stories of the
Rich Man and Good Samaritan, the
Lazarus, the
Prodigal Son, the Widow's Son of Nain, and some
other, but by no means all, nor even the most
striking, of the narratives which deal with poverty
and wealth.
Mr. Badham's account of the origin of the Gospels
is altogether different. Whereas Mr. Jolley writes,
" The Petrine character of the second Gospel is uni-
versally admitted," Mr. Badham denies it. Papias,
he says, has been misunderstood from the first. S.
Mark, so far from being the author of the second
Gospel, is the author of all that is peculiar in S.
Luke's Gospel, of much that is common to S.
Matthew and Luke, of more than half of the
S.
Acts of the Apostles, and of the whole of the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Of the second Gospel he only wrote
the last twelve verses, which textual critics declare
to be not genuine.
Historical criticismhas done much to restore
honour to S. Mark, but Mr. Badham in this respect
surpasses everyone. Those portions of S. Luke
which we call Pauline are really Petrine it is S. ;
Mark's Gospel that was written by an unknown

Pauline Christian. These views Mr. Badham pub-
lished as a Bachelor of Arts in 189 1 in a pamphlet
of ninety-nine pages. As a Master of Arts he pub-
lished in 1892 a volume at least six times as large,
greatly improved in tone, with new and various
pleadings, concluding with the three Gospels in
English, according to the Authorised Version, printed
in red type, black type, or italics, to indicate the
sources in detail. Earnest work like this demands
attention. We cannot afford to treat it as Mr.
Jolley does.
Mr. Badham holds (i) that the earliest document
(A) was written before the destruction of Jerusalem,
the next (B) after the flight to Bella. A and B were
speedily combined into AB. (2) Somewhat later a
Pauline Christian, with A, B, and AB in his hands,
but with little original knowledge, produced our
second Gospel. This was "an improved harmony,"
intended to supersede AB, but not A and B. The
writer omits very large portions, especially of B.
(3) S. Mark in Rome {circ. A.D. ^2) writes down
what he remembers of " the Preaching of S. Peter."

His work soon perished, but not before the greatest
—
part of it in fact, all but forty verses had been —
incorporated into other writings. (4) S. Luke com-
posed our third Gospel by combining " the Preaching
of S. Peter " with S. Mark's Gospel. He omits some
passages, especially of the latter work. He had A,
B, and AB before him, but seldom used them. (5)
Our Gospel was made up of AB and a few
first
sections from "the Preaching of S. Peter." Con-

trary to most critics, Mr. Badham makes this the
last of the synoptic Gospels.
It is not surprising that increased examination has
caused Mr. Badham to somewhat shift his ground.
In his second edition he includes in " the Preaching
of S. Peter" Luke i. 5-iii. 3 ; iii. 7-14, 18-20; iv. 5-8,
and many other sections, verses, or even half verses,
which he treated differently in his first edition. I
think he has rather weakened his case by these
changes. Strange to say, in both editions he
includes in the "Preaching" S. Luke's genealogy,
which would form a curious sermon. Mr. Badham's
theories are based upon doublets and inconsistencies.
Let us look at the doublets in S. Matthew. Mr.
Badham denies that the same document could have
held the following doublets, (i) "This is Elijah
which is to come," "Elijah is come already." (2)
" The sign of Jonah " (twice). " More tolerable
(3)
for Sodom " (twice). (4)
" Trees known by their
fruit " (twice). (5) "Unfruitful trees hewn down and

burnt " (twice). (6) " Greatest be your servant
(twice). (7) " Every idle word that men shall speak
in the day of judg-
they shall give account thereof
ment," "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the judgment." It is un-
necessary to continue the list. S. Matthew uses the
phrase, "There shall be wailing and gnashing of
teeth," six times; "The end of the world," five
times ;
" Eternal life," seven times. The conclusion
which Mr. Badham, it seems, would have us draw is,
that when a phrase occurs twice diversity of docu-

ments is proved, when it occurs more than twice
identity. But anyone admit that? That there
will
is one doublet Matthew (ix. 27-34 = xii. 22-24)
in S.
is made probable by S. Luke's parallel. That there
is another (xii. 4i = xvi. 4), and several in S. Luke,
will scarcely be denied by those who have studied

the question but Mr. Badham's four lists, with an
;
a-ggêgate of one hundred doublets, can only excite

our amazement.
Mr. Badham, however, rightly follows Dr. Weiss
and others in maintaining that the central third of
S. Luke (ix. 51-xviii. 14) is not, as it appears to
claim to be, an account of events which happened
during the last journey to Jerusalem, but " the main-
stock of a record, covering," not " the whole period
of our Lord's life," but a considerable part of His
ministry. His arguments on this point are mostly

convincing. Chapter viii., also, is interesting in its
suggestion that " S. Peter's Preaching " is arranged
according to subject-matter. In many cases there
is good reason to think so. In chapter x. a less
successful attempt is made to show that Tatian used
"the Preaching of S. Peter," as well as our four
Gospels, in drawing up his Dia Tessaron. Chapter

xi. maintains that certain sections of the Acts of
the Apostles are a continuation of the " Preaching
of S. Peter." He goes further than I should go
in extending these sections over the whole book.
Chapter xii. deals with the authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Those who think the
Epistle to have been written by S. Luke will, if
they accept Mr. Badham's views, have no objection
to transfer the authorship to S. Mark. To others
Mr. Badham's reasons are not likely to be con-
vincing. Chapter xv. deals with the inconsistencies.
They are weaker than the doublets. The first I
consider the only good one. " How strange it is to
hear Christ enjoining secrecy on the leper when
great multitudes are present." (Matt. viii. i, 4.)
True, but Matt. viii. i, I an "editorial
maintain, is
note." It is absent from S. Mark and S. Luke. It
is only one of those connecting links which bind
narratives together, but are not based on the original

authority, and are sometimes demonstrably wrong.
Mr. Badham assumes that Matt. xvii. 21 is
genuine. A critic should take care to use a good
text. How strange it is, he continues, " to hear
Christ bidding certain women. All hail, when the
context (Matt, xxviii. only assures us of the pre-
i)
sence of two." WhenShakespeare wrote, " Caesar,

all hail," he did not imply that several persons were
present. The Greek is simply Xalpere. A critic

should work upon the Greek text and not upon the
"authorised" English version. In pages yy and y8
Mr. Badham gives lists of words peculiar to A
and B. He derives the imperative eêrda-aTe from
cKTaêiv. When a writer, who is capable of such
errors, speaks about Greek style, the reader will
learn to discount his confident assertions.
The on page 77 contains twenty-one words
list
peculiar and the list on page y8 nineteen

to A,
words peculiar to B. What reason can be given
why we should not add the lists together and say
that they give us forty words peculiar to S.
Matthew ? They are mostly such. Kar ovap occurs
five times in Matt, i., ii., once in Matt, xxvii. 19, and
nowhere else. Would it not be fair to argue, on

Mr. Badham's principles, that the author, who has
shown such a predilection for the phrase in chapters
i., cannot have written the next twenty-four
ii.,
chapters? In this case the argument, I believe,

would be in accordance with the facts, but it
would wreck Mr. Badham's theory. But there are
further inaccuracies to be noticed. aOwo^ occurs in
Matt, xxvii. 24 only, for it is a false reading in
Matt, xxvii. 4. The same may be said of airivavri,
which is a true reading once, but false twice. The
accents oiKiaKo^, ^\i6g, 6X0X69, crTeipa, ecog, avdarTacrlg,
eK veKpcov are wrong. TrvpeToo, copa (dative), and aOwos
"
require i subscript. Many of these " peculiar words
are found in S. John, S. Paul, S. James, and other
writers; several occur in the Acts of the Apostles,
which was not written by the author of A or B.
Mr. Badham has a greater show of reason when
he argues, from the discrepancies in the order of
narration between S. Matthew and S. Mark, that two
documents, A and B, were used and pieced together
differently. But even

so, he cannot account for S.
Matthew's order he only reduces the number of

;
variations. The explanation that the Eastern cate-

chists omitted numerous sections of S. Peter's
Memoirs in order to put the Sermon on the
Mount near the beginning of the ministry, and then
turned back and gathered up the fragments that
remained, preserving in both cases the relative
order, seems to me to be far more probable.
The strange difficulty which those critics who
support the documentary hypothesis feel about the
preservation of the same order of narration in oral
tradition, extending, as it does, even
to minute
particulars, is surely Systems of
unwarranted.
mnemonics were largely used by the ancients, and
they were necessarily based on order and associa-
tion. There are clergy now who can repeat the
litany from beginning to end without book if they ;
changed the order of a single petition their memory

would break down.
It will be seen that both these authors deny the
unity of S. Mark, or of the " Triple Tradition," and

expand the volume of the Logia. Mr. Badham's B
corresponds in the main to the Logia, Mr. Jolley's
P.G. professes to restore it. They both hold that
the second Gospel (S. Mark) made free use of the
Logia, Herein I cannot agree with them. If S.
Mark had why did not he make more
the Logia, use
of it ? An evangelist who deliberately omitted the
Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, the longer
parables and discourses, when he had them before
him in writing, is an incomprehensible enigma.
But the other evangelists are hardly better. What
should have induced S. Matthew to omit the parables
of the Prodigal Son, the Rich Fool, the Rich Man
and Lazarus, or the journey to Emmaus? Why
should S. Luke have omitted the healing of the
Syrophcenician woman's daughter? The critic who
accepts the oral hypothesis has an intelligible
answer. They omitted what they had never heard.
No critic who works on the documentary hypo-
thesis has ever accounted for the multitudinous
diversities in the identical sections of the triple or
double tradition. Those who attempt the task say
that the evangelists, although they had documents,
and used them as guides to the order, and in a few
other respects, trusted rather for their language to
local oral tradition, because the congregation for
which they wrote would tolerate nothing else. If
that is the state of the case, apostolic authority had
sunk rather low. Cannot we dispense with these
imaginary documents if they were of so little use?
But when once you leave the triple tradition, the
question of order appears to be fatal to the docu-
mentary hypothesis. Look at Mr. Jolley's order.
He divides P.G. into seventeen chapters of about
twenty-two verses each. S. Matth'-'v copies them
in the following order (to save space t. _ first verse
only is given) : i. i, 3, 6, 8, 9 ; ii. i, 5 ; xv. 18 ; v.,
14 ; ii.
7 ; xiii. 6 ; ii. 1 1 ; v. 19 ; ii. 12, 15 ; ix. 5 ; xii.
18; V. 15; viii. 25 ; xii. ii; ii. 1018 .17;

; ix. ;
xiv. 9; ii. 21, 23; xiv. ii. ; ii. need not con-
24. I
tinue the catalogue, though I have only come to the

end of Matt. vii. S. Mark's order is no better ; S.
Luke's is even worse. Did three men, working

independently on the same document, ever copy it
so erratically? Does anyone believe after this that
Mr. Jolley's " hypothesis explains all the facts " ?
Mr. Badham's chief argument for identifying S.
Luke's original matter with "the Preaching of S.
Peter" is the statement of Papias, that S. Mark
wrote, " but not in order." Our second Gospel, Mr.
Badham insists, is a conspicuously orderly document,
because nearly every event follows "immediately"
after the preceding ; but the central third of S.
Luke's is as famous for disorder. Without denying
the latter assertion, I protest against the former.
S. Mark's Gospel is not orderly. Papias explains
why it is not so in the next sentence. It consists of
lessons loosely strung together, because S. Peter did
not assay to write a continuous history, but adapted
his teaching to the needs of his pupils at the moment.
A better description of S. Mark's Gospel could
not be given. His fifty-six " immediately's " are
merely " editorial " connecting links, and cannot be
pressed.
We are asked to believe that all the supposed
documents, and combinations of documents, came
into existence by a mushroom growth at Jerusalem,
Pella, Rome, OF"^ther places between the years 68-72
A.D., and j^QX'ished, as a rule, before 80. Yet they
were so widely circulated that three evangelists,
living at widely-severed places, had a copy of all of
them,, .xcept the heretical Ebionite work.
We cannot suppose that the evangelists got copies
sooner or more surely than other men. Therefore,
at least a hundred copies must have been made and
circulated with extraordinary rapidity. Yet they all
perished. Not even at Ephesus, at Alexandria, or at
Rome did a copy remain. Nay, such was the ignor-
ance of the earliest fathers of the Church that they
confused S. Mark's work with S. Luke's, and the
mistake has been continued till Mr. Badham has at
last exposed it.
I think it is time that men began to consider once

more the claims of the oral hypothesis.
Badham produces another
Five years later Mr.
book,* which he
in comes forward as a pupil of
Hilgenfeld, and adopts for a motto a quotation
from S. Augustine.
Are we to understand that he has adopted all
the opinions of Hilgenfeld to the exclusion of his
own ? He does not, like Stesicborus, begin with
the palinode
ovK ecTT^ eVf/xos Aoyos ovros,
or, like an Act of Parliament, state precisely how

much of previous acts from
is rescinded. It is clear
his sixteenth chapter that he has not renounced the

whole of his scheme, but there are considerable
modifications of it. For in the " Formation " S.
Mark is a dull copyist, with little original matter
in the " Indebtedness " he is an artist, who develops
a picture from S. Matthew's sketch. We should like
to know whether he adheres to his opinions about
the author and the contents of the "Preaching of
Peter." Must we continue to believe in that, or
may we conclude, as he now does, with a thankful
* S. Alarm's Indebtedness to S. MatthrM. London: 1897.

Requiescat, applied, however, to each and all of A, B,

AB, and P ?
There is nothing absurd in the contention that

S. Matthew wrote first and S. Mark abbreviated him.
Such has been the belief of the great majority of
Christians from S. Augustine to Keim. It was not
the opinion of the Early Church from Papias
onwards, nor is it generally accepted now but Mr. ;
Badham wishes to bring us back to S. Augustine's

opinion, and it is well for us to consider what he has
to say.
He possesses, I think, the advantages and dis-
advantages of what I may call —without meaning
anything offensive —microscopic eyesight. He sees
ambiguities, glosses, inflations, and inaccuracies
which, to a man with normal vision, are often
nothing of the kind. His argument rests upon
them, and he fails to take a wider view.
For example, certain sections of S. Matthew
notably chapters viii., ix., xiv. 1-12 —present a very
much shorter recension of the narrative than is found
in the other Gospels. But many parts of S. Matthew
are only slightly shorter than S. Mark, while not a
few are even longer, and contain the very glosses and
inflations which are held to be proofs of S. Mark's
posteriority. There is no attempt made to explain
this difference.
Again, it has been generally allowed that S.
Mark wrote Matthew for Jews.
for Gentile readers, S.
It would be more consonant with modern ideas to
say that S. Matthew's Gospel had gradually grown
up in a Jewish community, where it had gathered
S
to itself a large number of Judaic elements, such as
allusions to the Law and fulfilments of prophecy.
S. Mark, though he was originally taught the Gospel
in Jerusalem, had lived for many years in Pauline
Churches, and had learned to provide for Gentile
congregations. He may, therefore, have allowed a
few things to drop out of his teaching which had
only attraction for Jews, and he inserted certain
explanations of Semitic customs. Concede this, and
you have replied to Mr. Badham's chapter on " The
un-Judaic character of S. Mark."
—
Ancient historians claimed the privilege which is
—
now only conceded to novelists of knowing the
secret motives and private conversations of their
heroes. Probably some of the speeches in the
Gospels give rather what the occasion demanded
than what was actually said. These were literary
usages which imposed upon no one. Hence there is
no call for the remarks on page thirty-nine about
Herodias and her daughter.
Mr. Badham's evangelists are the slaves of a very
few documents, but he now allows them the pleasure
of an occasional gossip with their contemporaries,
which assisted their imagination, but could not add
to their knowledge. Has he never heard of the large
and energetic Church of Jerusalem, which still
"compassed sea and land to make one proselyte"?
Did not its emissaries penetrate to Antioch, Rome,
Alexandria, and other centres of thought ? Did not
its preachers and teachers follow in the footsteps of
S. Paul, and supply the wants of his newly-founded
Churches, sometimes leavening his teaching? And
were there not scores of Christians in Jerusalem who

had seen our Lord, heard Him converse, and had
been witnesses of the crucifixion? Could not they
confirm or add to S. Peter's recollections? Could
not they fill in his outline sketches, explaining many
an ambiguity, and often supplying a motive ? The
Tubingen leaders placed the birth of our Gospels in
the second century. It seems unreasonable to
admit that S. Matthew and S. Mark wrote soon
after 70 A.D., and yet to surround them with the
same atmosphere of ignorance. " These things were
not done in a corner."
Mr. Badham never takes into consideration the
question whether the oral hypothesis may not be the
true key to the synoptic problem. And this is to be
regretted, because under that hypothesis most of
the difficulties which trouble him disappear. For
example, the cumbrous array of primitive documents
— supposed to have been scattered broadcast over
the Churches, and yet to have perished in spite of
their priceless value, and left not a trace behind
vanish into thin air. Again, Mr. Badham's chief
purpose is to crush out of their phantom existence,
by argument and ridicule, those pets of the critics,
Ur-Marcus and Ur-Matthaus. In oral tradition we
seldom use these terms but, in spite of what Mr.
;
Badham has put forth, I fear that most of those who

have studied the question will agree with me that
they are indispensable under any theory of docu-
ments.
If S. Mark in any passage is opposed to both the
other Gospels, it is perfectly open to me, as a
supporter of the oral hypothesis, to assume that he
has consciously or unconsciously departed from his
original wording. If he has four sections which they
have not, I infer that these were the latest additions
to his Gospel. That they should, in taking their

places there, thrust out a few verses which once were
there, is highly probable ; and so Mr. Badham's fifth
chapter becomes unnecessary. If many of S. Mark's

picturesque descriptions are curtailed in both the
other Gospels, the reason may be that whatever is
not requisite to make sense, is liable to be riddled

out in oral teaching. At the same time, I am free to
admit that some of them are later accretions, and so
I deal with chapter iv.
If St. Luke omits thirty-six of S. Mark's sections,

I can point out that S. Mark's oral teaching was
carried westwards about 47 A.D., before the said
sections were incorporated into it. If he gives us
sixteen scraps out of the omitted sections, I reply
that the were sent to him by his corre-
scraps
spondents. Thus we secure
all the advantages of
an oral Ur-Marcus, which is a very elastic thing,

without the inextricable perplexities of ^ docu-
mentary One, which is a rigid thing.
If S. Mark contains few of the narratives which
appear to come to us from non-Petrine sources, it is
because he buried himself in Cyprus, out of reach
of progressive activities. If S. Matthew is rich
in such new matter, it is because his oral Gospel

continued move, perhaps, ten years longer in
to
Jerusalem, before it was taken to its final habitat
(Alexandria?). During those ten years it must have

been so amplified, corrected, and polished, that the

chapter on S. Mark's abruptness is not required.
S. Luke, besides keeping up communications with
Jerusalem by letter and visitors, resided in Palestine
for two years during S. Paul's imprisonment, and
doubtless used his opportunity to collect new
materials. Under the oral hypothesis we can
explain his order, his additions, and — most difficult
of all —his omissions. We can do so without the

slightest demand on the reader's credulity, and
without making any of the evangelists a literary
monster.
In contrast to all this, Mr. Badham accounts for
the omissions as excisions ! And the only reason for
them that a Gospel must be kept within
offered is
certain limits. Perhaps so, as we have seen above

(P- I3)j yet the omitted sections contain things
which are far too valuable to have been struck out.

The difficulty about S. Luke's order Mr. Badham
does not seem to have But he does not often
felt.
consider the points which against him. make

For
example, he dwells on the abruptness produced by
the omission from Mark xiv. 65 of the question,
" Who he that smote Thee ? " but he does not tell
is
us how these words, on his own principle, found their

way into S. Luke.
It is desirable that a critic of the Gospels should
work upon the Greek text, and in a good edition.
Mr. Badham appears to work on the English Revised
Version, and, when he refers to the Greek, to use
the textus receptus^ not even in Scrivener's edition.
How else can we account for Kpa^âro^ instead of
Kpaârrog? The latter form is accepted by all
modern editors, and is rendered necessary by the

line in the Moretum —
" Membra levat sensim vili demissa grabato."
How else account for euOeW instead of eu^J?? How

else does he accuse S. Mark of the redundancy,
" Them that trust in riches " ? Even the Revisers in
their margin condemn this reading. TaXfOa kovixi
is not correct in Mark v. 41, but roKeSa kovijl. For
KovjULei is the Hebrew form in Syriac the; final
consonant is written but not vocalised, because it
was not usually pronounced. 'E^âOa, by the way,

is not Aramaic.
Attention to Greek syntax is still more desir-
able in those who would lead others. And what
shall we say of the assertion that ek ro irepav irpoî
BtjOaraLSa(v) might mean, " To the opposite side from
Bethsaida " ? To which is appended the note,
" B>7<9(7a/âi/ may just as well be a genitive as an
accusative. Cf. oval croi BrjOaalSw, Matt. xi. 21 ;
similarly t«, E, Luke x. 13. Although it is more

natural to take BrjOa-alSav in Mark vi. 45 as an
accusative, must be remembered that S. Luke
it
may have been influenced by the fact above noticed,

that this interpretation is difficult to reconcile with
verse fifty-three."In the Greek Testament irpos
with the genitive occurs once, and then not in a
local sense ; irpog with the accusative occurs about
seven hundred times. I do not believe that any
Greek author in any age could have used irpog with
the proper name of a place in the genitive to mean
simply " from." Liddell and Scott quote Sophocles,

Antigofte, 1037, but that is a false reading. Granted,
therefore, that ^riQo-aiSav is not necessarily an accu-
sative, but a curious collateral indeclinable form of
î]dcraLSa — Dr. Hort compared it with VoXyoOav —
confidently assert that no native Greek could have
understood by it " from Bethsaida." What would be
the use of language London " could
if " to occasion-
ally mean "from London"?
Again, in Mark iii. 2 1 the various reading e^la-TaTai
avTovq cannot be primitive, because no writer in the
first century would have put it for e^la-Trja-^v avrovg.
The LXX. are never guilty of such a mistake.
As a matter of fact, however, Cod. D. does not
read e^tWaraf, but eiecTarai, a mere blunder, which
points, however, to eêa-rtj. The Greek of Cod. D. in
this passage, as in many others, has been altered to
correspond to the Latin, and the double error in
syntax and in accidence detects the change. Mr.
Badham's alternative suggestion that if eêa-rtj be
read, perhaps oxXog is the subject to it, makes one

ask with surprise. Do you think so ?
I have not the space here to work through

the whole of Mr. Badham's objections. Many of
them are very well known of old. Many of them
appear to me forced, exaggerated, inapplicable, or
capable of being used to prove the opposite. The
cumulative effect is not what he would wish it to be.
The strongest reason for upholding the priority
of S. Mark is the difficulty of believing that any
Christian in writing a Gospel would deliberately
strike out of it what has always been dearest to
the hearts of his brethren. Put S. Mark
first, and
he is invaluable ;
put him anywhere and he is
else,
inexplicable. What sort of Christians would desire
to purchase brevity by the excision of the story of
our Lord's birth, the Sermon on the Mount, the
account of the Son of Man in glory (Matt, xxv.),
with the longer parables and much discourse matter?
The very fact of S. Mark's comparative unpopularity
is a decisive answer.
To come it hard to believe that
to details, I find
if S. Mark had had Matthew's eKaroprapxos
S.
before him he would have changed it into the
Latin KevTvplwv harder to believe that he altered S.
;
Matthew's roh avOpcoiroLg into the Aramaic roig vioig

Tcov oLpOpcoTTcov, whlch misleads some of his readers
to this day (Mark iii. 28 = Matt. xii. 31); impossible
to believe that he habitually altered S. Matthew's
smoother and more polished sentences into the
rugged, uncouth, Semitic co-ordinations, with hardly
any other conjunction than "and." In fact, that
monotonous monosyllable does more than outweigh
what Mr. Badham has put into the opposite scale.
If S. Mark started with a small nucleus of oral
teaching, and slowly expanded it as his master
supplied new we should inevitably find
class-lessons,
some of those connexions which Mr. Badham thinks
awkward, abrupt, and inconsequent. But is not this
exactly what Papias says about S. Mark? What
right has anyone to transfer the words of Papias
to some other document, and then to condemn S.
Mark as secondary, for the very reasons which most
surely establish his priority?
XVII.
PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW*
THE writer of this book undertakes

the exact meaning of Papias in the sentence,
to examine
MarOaiog jmev ovv 'îBpaiSi SiaXeKTo) ra \6yia

f (Tvveypa^lraTO, ^pjuL^pevcre S' avra cog f]v Svparog
eKacTTog, which I should render, " Matthew procured
the compilation of the Utterances (of our Lord, in
Aramaic), and each man translated them (into
Greek), according to his ability," but he would offer
something like the following Matthew collected :
*'
and explained the Old Testament prophecies con-

cerning the Messiah; and his treatise was the
storehouse from which early Christians drew their
Messianic discussions."
There was room in English theological literature
for a new work on Papias, for above twenty years
have passed since Bishop Lightfoot penned his
famous Essays for the Contemporary Review ; and
the progress which has been made during the
intervening period in the historical criticism of the
Gospels has inevitably caused much of what he
wrote to need reconsideration. We cannot think,
however, that this treatise has supplied the want.
* London Longmans. 1894. avv^ra^drOf p. 16.
:
f v. 1.
265
The author does not seem to us to possess the
necessary qualifications. For example, he tells us,
" The word ripixi^vevcre ( = interpreted) may be taken
to mean either explained or translated,' " and he
*
'
'
finally decides in favour of " explained." Now I
put itanyone, whether "John wrote a treatise

to
in French and William interpreted it," can mean
anything but that William translated it, or para-
phrased it, or in some way made it intelligible to
the English reader. In Greek, where antithesis is
the backbone of composition, the necessity for so
understanding the sentence is much greater, and we
cannot think highly of the critical insight of an
author who does not feel this instinctively. But this
simple fact is fatal to our author's contention, for
even if Xoyia might mean " (Messianic) prophecies,"
S. Matthew cannot have filled five books by merely

copying them out and writing them down, but we
know from Eusebius that such was the length of the
treatise in question.
Again, it is clear from these pages that the writer
has no knowledge of Aramaic or even of Hebrew.
This is surely a serious defect in treating of Papias,
and many a weary page does it needlessly inflict
upon us. A man cannot satisfactorily deal with the
Septuagint without some knowledge of Hebrew.
Look also at the following extract " Aramaic was :
not a learned language. The Christians of Palestine,

whose mother-tongue it was, understood it perfectly.
The Greek Christians did not understand it at all.
Where, then, is the meaning that 'everyone interpreted
it as he was able ? " (p. 4.) Now I admit that Pales-
'
PAPIAS ON S. MATTHEW 267
tinian Aramaic was in a very formless and fluctuating

state, but Papias does not assert that "everyone"
translated it. The verb is in the singular, and the
distributive e/cacrro? is used. If three or four persons
attempted the task, the language will be sufficiently
accounted for. If Papias himself was one of them
and he talks elsewhere of his translations of the
—
Utterances those who have ever tried to render
Aramaic into Greek will feel the force of the self-
depreciatory, apologetic way in which he speaks of
his efforts.
But if our author is seriously handicapped by his
ignorance of Semitic languages, what must we think
of his Greek scholarship? Examine the following
examples :
(1) ovx cocrirep crvvTaîv rcov KvpiaKwv iroiov/nevog

Xoylcovy"not as making a systematic disquisition
upon the Dominical oracles." (p. 2.)
" Matthew
(2) 'MarOaiog to. \6yia (Tvveypayp-aTOy
wrote on the (Messianic) prophecies." (p. 83.)
(3) Ka\ og (Iv jULeOoSevn to. \6yia rov K.vpiov, " and
whosoever shall pervert the oracles 0/ {concerning) the
Lord." (p. ej)
(4) SLaj3ePaLOviJLevo<i virep avrm aKrjOeiav, ^'having
thoroughly established the truth concerning them."
(p. 9.) Apparently he regards this word as a
reduplicated perfect.
(5)
" The word exotericus has a recognised meaning
which appears very apt for the interpretation of this
passage. It means that which is contained in writing
as opposed to mere oral instruction." (p. 18.)

These translations are either careless or perverse,
and yet they are thrust on us when much depends
upon them. We shall presently maintain that our
author's main argument rests on a false rendering of
a Greek sentence, and that in another place he takes
up a most important position in defiance of the
fundamental rules of Greek syntax.
After stating the problem which he proposes to
solve by an entirely new method, the writer proceeds
to discuss the date at which Papias published his
" Exposition of the Utterances of our Lord," or, as
he calls it, " Exposition of Messianic prophecies.'*

This he places at " not earlier than A.D. 80, or later
than A.D. 98. About A.D. 90 would seem to be the
most probable Bishop Lightfoot had
date." (p. 31.)
given "A.D. 130-140, later," and other
or even
authorities, who differ widely from each other, have
accepted this. But our author argues from the
tenses of the Greek verbs which are used that
Papias must have written during the lives of
Aristion and John the Elder, who had been disciples
of the Lord, and therefore cannot have lived much
later than A.D. 100. The tenses of the verbs, how-
ever,merely show that these two men were living at
the time when Papias was pursuing his inquiries.*
* The rule in English Reported Speech is that the leading verb

affects all the verbs in the speech following.Thus, " I am glad to
see you was a fine day yesterday. You wi// be glad to hear that I
It
sâ// commence harvest to-morrow," becomes, " He told me that he
was glad to see me ; it Aad been a fine day yesterday. I should be glad
to hear that he would commence harvest to-morrow," ''should" and
"would" being not subjunctives but past tenses of the indicative.
But in Greek, when the leading verb is in a past tense, although the
mood of the verbs following may be changed into the optative or not
at the option of the writer, the tenses must remain the same as they
The context shows that he did this in the early days

of his episcopate, or even before his consecration, a
whole generation before he began to write. Why
else should he speak of it as a chapter in his history
which had long been closed? Why else should he
insist on the pains with which he had learned the
traditions by heart, and on the excellence of the
memory by means of which he had retained them?
Here, then, we perceive a mistake so fatal to the
whole argument, that were it not for the extreme
importance of the Papias question, we might well
decline to pursue the subject any further.
The Emperor Caius is said to have expressed a
wish that the whole Roman people had but one
neck, that he might have had the pleasure of severing
it. And a certain class of critics trace everything
back to Papias, in the hope that if they can discredit
him, they may shake the foundations of early Church
history. In this chapter the real question is the date
of the apostle John's death, which our author tries to
put thirty years earlier than ancient authorities place

it It was John the Presbyter— not John the Apostle
—who (we are assured) lived till nearly the close of
the first century, and most people ignorantly or
wilfully confused him with the son of êbedee. In
were in the direct speech. Therefore the only correct way to translate
the quotation from Papias is,
'
' Andwas visited by one of
if at times I
the pupils of the Fathers, I would examine him upon the discourses of
the Fathers, as to what Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John,
Matthew, or any other of our Lord's disciples (once) had said, or what
Aristion, or the Presbyter John, our Lord's disciples (still) said'' And
upon this way of translating this crucial passage we must insist,
though it is not found in the usual text books.

particular, Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, had been
led in his youth to believe that Polycarp had
conversed with the beloved apostle. In later life,
he discovered the deception. What was he to do?

If he confessed the truth, he would sink in the
popular estimation if he told a
; lie, he would
imperil his soul. He resolved at last to act a lie.
"
Throughout his writings John the " disciple
he calls
of Jesus, never the " apostle." Those who were in
the secret knew that John the Presbyter is some-
times intended, but the mass of readers are deceived
into supposing that it was always the Apostle.
We should have thought that Irenseus (like Papias,
the author of the Muratorian fragment on the Canon,
and other writers) borrowed the title " disciple " from
the Gospels, especially from the fourth Gospel. But
in any case we cannot allow the existence of the
Christian Church to be ignored. In i8o A.D. there
must have been hundreds of Christians in Asia
Minor and elsewhere who had derived from tradi-
tion a tolerably correct idea of the date of the
apostle's decease, and who would thus have had
a guide to the meaning of Papias which we no
longer possess. It is impossible to suppose that
Polycarp, Papias, and
Irenaeus, even if they had
wished to do so, could have misled the whole
Church.
The next point of discussion is the meaning of the
word \6yia. Our author complains that the early
Latin Fathers perversely translate it by verda,
eloquia^ or sermones, connecting it with the idea of
words, oratory, or discourses ; not till we come to
Rufinus is the proper rendering oracula given, which

connects it with oracles, prophecies, and Scripture.
Now the early writers include S. Jerome, who was
a practised translator, and possessed a competent
knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. It seems
to me that his rendering is perfectly right. For Xoyia
is properly an adjective, the neuter plural of Xoyf09,
which means " an eloquent man." And although in

profane authors \6yiov is sometimes applied to an
oracle, it is rather as the utterance of the god than
as the xpWIô^- Our author confesses that he can
see no difference between \6yia and \6yoi in
the Septuagint. We should as soon look for a
difference between "he spake" and "he said."
If we turn to the Hebrew, we shall find this
reasoning corroborated, \6yiov commonly repre-
sents "T)?^, a poetical and rather rare word,
derived, however, from the commonest verb in the
language, "i^^?, "to say." In the LXX., therefore,
\6yiov simply recalls raSe Xeyet 6 Kvpioî ''thus
saith the Lord" and this is the meaning which
underlies the word, not only in the LXX., but in
Philo, Josephus, and the early Christian Fathers. It
is never used of ordinary human utterances, but

both in sacred and profane writers is confined to the
divine. The context alone can decide whether the
"Utterances of the Lord" are the Utterances of
Jehovah or the Utterances of the Lord Jesus. I
deem it therefore superfluous to examine the twenty-

six passages which our author has laboriously
collected. As well might we collect examples to
prove that text always means a verse of Scripture.
2/2 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
In a certain class of writers it invariably does so,
but you look beyond them, you will find the wider
if
meaning asserting itself.

Papias uses the word \6yiov three times in the few
fragments of his work which have reached us. I agree
with our author that there is a presumption that he
uses it always in the same sense, but I insist that in
the fragment about S. Mark we must translate (s.v.l.)
"not as though he were making a catena of our Lord's
Utterances'' and therefore I should claim this render-
ing for the two other passages also. " S. Matthew,"
therefore, "procured the compilation of the Utterances
of our Lord," and the title of the lost work of Papias
was, "An Exposition of the Utterances of our Lord,"
nor do I know of any reason why this rendering
should be called in question. Much has been said
about the silliness on writing a
of Papias, but if he,
treatise upon the Messianic prophecies taken from
the Old Testament, instead of calling it e^rjytjcris
Tcov irepi rod ^picrrov 7rpo(pr]T€i(ji)v, deliberately

preferred the title e^/jyrja-i^ Xoylwv KvpiaKwvy so far
from sneering at the mental calibre of Irenaûs for

understanding him to mean " An exposition of the
words of our Lord," I should say that no Greek
could have taken the sense to be otherwise. Dr.
Resch, in his Agrapha^ has gone so far as to use
\6yLov in the singular for every Utterance which he
can discover of extra-canonical sayings of Jesus, and
I think that he is perfectly justified in doing so.
But our author, following the early Tubingen

school, has very much to say about the heterodoxy
of this primitive bishop. Papias was not only a
credulous fool, but he warned his readeiss against

expecting to find any spiritual food in S. Paul's
Epistles. He wrote things which Eusebius dared
not, or would not, quote. His book perished because
it was shocking to post-Nicene orthodoxy.
Now the quotations which have reached us from
Papias are not always very pleasant or satisfactory
reading, but we have no right to suppose that they
are samples of the bulk of the five books.
fair
Take a similar case. The fragments of the " Gospel

according to the Hebrews " are far from satisfactory,
but they owe their preservation to their very strange-
ness. The work was so orthodox that S.
as a whole
Jerome, after transcribing and translating it into
it,
both Greek and Latin, pronounced it to be the

original of S. Matthew, and similarly the orthodox
divines of the post-Nicene period gave Papias the
title of the Great. Should his work ever be
—
discovered and who can say that it will not be ?
we feel sure that it will not shock the Christian
conscience. Destructive criticism, we are confident,
will profit as little by it as by the discovery of
Tatian's Dia Tessaron.
Bishop Lightfoot, following the old commentators,
argued that Papias, in his allusions to S. Matthew
and S. Mark, was describing the genesis of our first
and second Gospels. As far as S. Mark goes, he
may well have been right. Of course, our author
says that this cannot be so, for Papias complains of
lack of order, whereas S. Mark's Gospel is as orderly
as any. The answer is easy. As long as men fancy
that Papias — or his authority — preferred S. John's
T
order or S. Matthew's to S. Mark's, the observation
made by John the Presbyter will be perplexing.
But if they will look at the reasons which the
Presbyter himself produces, they will see that the
criticism is a far-reaching one. The lack of
chronology was inherent in the methods of com-
pilation. The Gospel of S. Mark consists of a
number of detached lessons, issued originally by S.
Peter without any regard to chronology, and
subsequently strung together by S. Mark with only
the rudest attempt to recover the true sequence.
Long consideration of the subject has convinced me
that this is the true account of the matter. S. Mark's
arrangement is altogether wrong, and therefore the
other synoptists, who follow his arrangement, are
wrong John the Presbyter may well have
also.
pointed out this from personal knowledge and con-
versation with eye-witnesses.
In the case of S. Matthew's Gospel, it is not so
easy to believe that Dr. Lightfoot was right.
Historical criticism has convinced us of the priority
of S. Mark to S. Matthew. It follows from this
that S. Matthew's Gospel is a composite work, of
which the Apostle can only have written some parts,
and the Presbyter is probably speaking of those parts
only. But what parts did he write ? The Logia^ we
reply, by which we understand those " Utterances of
the Lord " which go to make up the Sermon on the
Mount and other discourses and parables which are
absent from S. Mark, but are found in the first
Gospel, and large portions of them in the third.
Our author holds that S. Matthew wrote only those
eleven quotations from the Old Testament which are

peculiar to the and are mostly introduced
first Gospel,
by the editorial That phrase, "
it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the Lord through the prophets,

saying."
Of course, our author holds that S. Matthew's
supposed collection of prophecies was larger than
this, Papias can hardly have written five books to
explain eleven texts. And other Gospels, which
have perished, may have incorporated the whole,
or nearly the whole, of S. Matthew's treatise. In
particular, the which Justin Martyr is
Gospel
assumed to have used, is supposed to have been
much richer in this department.
If such a collection did exist whoever was the —
author — seems to me more probable that Justin
it
quoted from it direct than from any supposed Gospel

containing it. But what I wish to point out is, that
these eleven quotations in our first Gospel are no
part of the original work. They are comparatively
late accretions, never essential to the narrative or
really blended with it. The narrative is older and
independent. If, therefore, S. Matthew died, as our
author insists, about A.D. 63, having already compiled
this book, how much older may the other parts of
the Gospel be?
It is clear that the study of Messianic prophecy
was an absorbing topic of the time. Every preacher
would contribute something to it, and no subject was
more popular in sermons. I hold that the collection
of Messianic texts was a gradual growth, and that
the oldest narratives embedded in our Gospels may
2/6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
sometimes be detected by their lack of this element.
Justin Martyr's Gospel quotations present a large
number of very problems, but I see
interesting
nothing in the examination of a few of
partial
them, with which our author is content, to set aside
the account of Dr. Abbott in his article on the
Gospels in the Encyclopcedia Britannica. I go even
beyond the Rev. J. A. Cross, in holding that during
the oral stage every considerable Church must have
had a Gospel of its own, identical with those of
other Churches in many points, but differing from
them, sometimes considerably, both in contents and
in wording. With S. Luke i. 1-4 before us, we can
hardly deny that some of these Gospels had been
partially committed to writing, enough perhaps to
account for the language of i Tim. v. 18; but we
see insuperable objections to the idea that Justin, in
the middle of the second century, when, as he informs
us, the Gospels were already read in Churches, used
any other Gospel than the four which we possess.
XVIII.
THE GIFT OF TONGUES
TWO rival interpretations, which I
ancient and the modern, are usually set before

may call the
the student in this difficult subject. But the leading

commentators in recent years have so decidedly
inclined to the modern view that Dr. Schaff, in his
History of the Church (I. 232), pronounces the ancient
to be generally abandoned.
This, perhaps, is saying too much. Generally
abandoned it may be amongst those who have
seriously studied the question, but as long as the
" Authorised " Version continues to be read in
churches, the ancient interpretation is likely to com-
mend itself to the mass of Christians.
I propose inthis paper to examine the whole
matter ;and I may state at the outset that, though
the arguments against the ancient explanation are in
my opinion decisive, the modern is beset by difficulties
even more formidable. There remains a third inter-
pretation, which has never made much way, because
it seems to possess the difficulties of both the others
with the advantages of neither. But I shall endeavour

to show that, when strengthened by some new
277
explanations, it is at least worthy of careful con-
sideration.
I take Dr. Wordsworth, the late Bishop of Lincoln,
as the most uncompromising advocate of the ancient
view. In his Commentary on Acts ii. 4 he maintains
that the apostles on the day of Pentecost were
gifted with the tongues of all nations, and retained
this gift in full force throughout the rest of their
ministry, because Christ sent them to preach to
all nations ; and they being unlettered men, not
trained to public speaking (Acts iv. 13), could not,
he argues, have done their work without this super-
natural aid. S. Peter himself, with his Galilean
accent (Matt. xxvi. y^^), could never have been an
acceptable speaker even to an audience of Jews.
To confirm this view the Bishop quotes S. Cyril in
Cramer's Catena^ " They spake with languages which
they had never learnt, and thus was fulfilled the
prophecy : 'There is neither speech nor language, but
their voices are heard among them.'" And he insists
with S. Chrysostom and S. Augustine that "the
miracle of Pentecost is the antithesis of the confusion
of tongues at Babel. There the one language had
been divided into many here the many languages ;
are united in one man."

Now in the first place, we have no scriptural
warrant for the contrast between the gift of Pentecost
and the confusion of Babel. Nor is the rendering of
Psalm xix. 3, which S. Cyril follows, admitted to be
true. The psalmist is speaking of the stars and
other heavenly bodies, which have no speech or
language, and yet with clearest voice proclaim the
THE GIFT OF TONGUES 279
glory of God. But Professor Cheyne gives reasons

for regarding the whole verse as a gloss.*
In the second place, the ancient Fathers did not
distinguish between what is contrary to nature, and
what is simply beyond nature's unaided powers. The
more startling and stupendous a miracle was, the
more worthy it appeared to them to be of God's
working. The question, " Is anything too hard for
the Lord?" put an end for them to controversy.
They had not realised, as we have, the supremacy of
law or the uniformity of the divine operation.
They would not have understood, while they would
have rejected as blasphemous, the assertion of Meyer,
" The sudden communication of a faculty of speaking
foreign languages is neither logically possible nor

psychologically and morally conceivable." f
Far be it from me to endorse Meyer's dogmatism.
Till " man is the measure of all things," it is not for
us to say what is impossible when the human mind
is supernaturally acted upon by the Divine Spirit.
A thing may be to imagine and hard to
difficult
believe, but our weigh the evidence for it,

duty is to
and not to reject it for d priori reasons. But it is
when we consider the question in the light of contem-
porary history that we find Bishop Wordsworth's
contention least supported.
S. Paul, who
spake with tongues more than all
"
the Corinthians (i Cor. xiv. 18), was once preaching

at Lystra when the natives " cried out in the speech
of Lycaonia, The gods have come down to us
*
* Commentary on the Psalms,

t Commentary on Acts ii. 4.
in the likeness of men.* And they called Barnabas
Zeus, and Paul Hermes, because Paul was the leader
in speaking." And they proceeded to offer sacrifice
to them. (Acts xiv. ii.) It is reasonably clear that
S. Luke, in this to convey the
passage, intends
impression that it was the use of the Lycaonian
dialect which made the apostles so slow in perceiving
the intention of the barbarians.
S. Luke carefully records that S. Paul spoke in
" Hebrew " at Jerusalem : he does not tell us that he
spoke in Latin at Rome. The fact thathe wrote his
Epistle Romans in Greek is
to the an indication
that he used Greek in his addresses. And when
S. Luke records his sermons at other places in Greek,
without any hint that he is giving us only a translation
of what was said, there is a presumption that these
also were originally delivered in the Greek language.
Again, in the locus classicus on the question (i Cor.
xiv. I ff.) much special pleading is required to uphold
Bishop Wordsworth in his contention that the persons
of whom S. Paul is there writing always understood
what they when they spake with a tongue. To
said
an unprejudiced mind it seems abundantly plain that
they did not. " If I pray in a tongue," S. Paul writes
of himself, " my spirit prayeth, but my understanding
reaps no harvest." {y. 14.)
Once more, view be correct, why should
if this
speaking with tongues have been granted at the

conversion of Cornelius (Acts x. 46), or at that of
the twelve men at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6)? Were
they also to become evangelists and devote them-
selves to foreign work ?
And why have been so freely

should the gift
bestowed at Corinth, that Paul was constrained to

S.
lay down the rule that not more than three persons
must exercise it at any one assembly? There was
no missionary purpose there. "No one hearkens"
(ver. 2) or listens to For when the
what is said.
novelty was gone, the manifestation was not inter-

esting.
I have shown elsewhere* that we have good evi-
dence that S. Peter employed S. Mark to translate

his " Memoirs of the Lord " into Greek for the use of
the Hellenists at Jerusalem, and that Silvanus per-
formed a like service for S. Peter's first Epistle (p. 24
I Peter v. 12). Yet if S. Peter possessed the gift
of languages to the degree which Bishop Wordsworth
supposed, no such need of extraneous help could
have arisen. Nay, instead of the Hebraic style and
strong which mark some of the
provincialisms
apostolic writings, we should have expected the
purest Greek of the age, or even a polyglot edition.
S. Paul bids those who had the gift of speaking
with a tongue to "pray that they might interpret."
This can only mean that ordinarily they could not
interpret. It would be meaningless, if not blas-
phemous, to pray for this power if they had always
a full, conscious grasp of what they were uttering.
Lastly, it has been held to be one of the most
marvellous providential orderings which attended the
" fulness of the times " that the widespread use of
the Greek language made the acquisition of foreign

tongues less necessary to a missionary of the first
* Composition of the Four Gospels, pp. 15, 32.

century than it has been at any other age. Yet this
" preparation of the way of the Lord " would have
been wasted if the apostles had been supernaturally
endued with the gift of languages.
Contemporary history, therefore, gives little support
and many contradictions to the ancient interpretation
and, in the face of these, we do not feel justified
in throwing the burden of belief in this unparalleled

marvel on the faith of the brethren.
But before we come to the modern view, let us
glance at some other less important attempts to solve
the problem.
S. Luke's language in Acts ii. 4 ff. readily admits
of the explanation that the miracle did not lie in
the tongue of the speaker, but in the ears of the
listener. The speaker may have used his own mother
tongue, and the several hearers heard the words in
the language of their birth.
One speech on the day of Pentecost would thus
have sufficed for the fifteen dialects which S. Luke
enumerates. And Dr. Schaff actually maintains this
view. He holds that the Holy Spirit directly inter-
vened and interpreted the words during their passage
through the air, so as to present them to the ears
of the numerous listeners, to each in his native
tongue.*
But in this way the whole of S. Peter's speech
in Acts ii. 14 ff. might have been heard in divers
languages, whereas it evidently was not. For S.
Peter alludes to those who had been " speaking with
a tongue " in the third person. " These are not
* Hist. Church, i. 231.
drunken, as ye suppose." (v, 15.) Which fact, if it

does not prove that S. Peter had not exercised the
gift himself, at least shows that the manifestations
had ceased before he began his address. The very-
name, "speaking with a tongue," shows that the
miracle lay in the tongue of the speaker, and not
in the ear of the listener, and this extravagant view
may be set aside.
Others have pointed out that the simpler emotions
are expressed by sounds which are readily com-
prehended. Laughter, crying, sobs, sighs, huzzas,
the shrieks of frenzy and the groans of despair, are
either identical in all languages, or at least require
no interpretation. There are songs without words.
Music is a kind of language. Rhapsody does not
need definite expression. The primitive language of
Paradise may have been intelligible to all.
But this explanation, while it comes very far short
of satisfying S. Luke's words, " They began to speak
with other tongues," is finally set aside by S. Paul's
testimony that interpretation was the custom. Not
only was a man to "pray that he might interpret,"
but he was to keep silence if none of those who were
present could do so. " Interpretation of tongues
is classed as a spiritual gift by the side of speaking
with tongues (i Cor. xii. 10), but a universal language
would not need interpretation.
Some, therefore, have pleaded that instead of
reverting back to the simple language of Paradise,
we have here a foretaste of the complex language of
heaven, where all will understand, because all lan-
guages will be united into one comprehensive whole.

These, however, are speculations with which it is
impossible to deal. Language itself may be un-

necessary in the future state. We
do not know and
it is vain to argue on such a subject. At any rate,
we cannot imagine anything of the kind being
anticipated on earth.
We turn, therefore, at last to what I have called
the modern view.
If the ancient view was founded on S. Luke, and
scarcely took account of S. Paul, modern teachers
plead with much force that, if we wish to understand
what the gift really was, we must concentrate our

attention on S. Paul's words, as those of one who
himself possessed it, and had frequently witnessed
its manifestations in others, whereas it is not certain
that S.Luke enjoyed either of these advantages.
The late Dean Stanley discussed the whole question
in his Commentary on the First Epistle to the
Corinthians,and concluded that speaking with a
tongue was a trance or ecstasy, which in moments
of great religious fervour, especially at the moment
of conversion, seized the early believers ; and this
fervour vented itself in expressions of thanks-
giving, in fragments of psalmody, or hymnody,
or prayer, which to the speaker himself con-
veyed an irresistible sense of communion with
God, and to the bystander an impression of some
extraordinary manifestation of power; but not
necessarily any instruction or teaching, and some-
times even having the appearance of wild excitement,
like that of madness or intoxication.
He compares with it the ecstatic states amongst
the Montanists in the second century, and amongst

the Irvingltes of the nineteenth, giving some valuable
illustrations.
The Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Farrar,* is more ex-
plicit. The glossolalia, or speaking with a tongue,' is
'
connected with '

prophesying,' that is, exalted preach-
ing and magnifying God. The sole passage by which
we can hope to understand it is the section of the
first Epistle to the Corinthians, (xii. — xiv. 33.) It
is impossible for anyone to examine that section

carefully without being forced to the conclusion that
at Corinth, at any rate, the gift of tongues had not
the least connexion with foreign languages. . . .
They did not speak as men ordinarily speak. The

voice they uttered was awful in its range, in its tone,
in its modulations, in its startling, penetrating, almost
appalling power."
For myself, I must confess that I have done what
Dr. Farrar pronounces to be impossible for I have
;
read through the section in question with all the care

that I command, and have been forced to the
could
conclusion that, though some of S. Paul's illustrations
undoubtedly favour the theory of incoherent noises,
yet his application of them does not do so, and, on
the whole, foreign languages are certainly implied.
Again, I see nothing to indicate the awe-inspiring
tones which Dr. Farrar imagines. S. Paul's dis-
paraging words, "Sounding brass or clanging cymbal,"
"A trumpet giving an uncertain sound," seem to
me to be directed against the folly of using foreign
languages when no foreigners were present. Concrete
* Life of S. Paul, i. 95.
languages are certainly implied in the eulogistic
rhetorical description, " The tongues of men and of
angels." But "
no one hearkens " {v. 2) does not
imply an overwhelming, irresistible, spirit-stirring
appeal, but the contempt of familiarity. It is because
" I do not understand the speech " that " the speaker
is a foreigner to me, and I am a foreigner to him."
It is " the private man," and not the expert, who will
be at a loss how to say " Amen " to your prayer,
and will think you must be mad. All difficulty
will vanish if a version be supplied. And the
apostle's sole advice is, keep silence, or "pray that
ye may interpret."
If the word "new" were not in all probability
a false reading in Mark xvi. 17, we should have the
testimony, not of S. Mark, for the passage is not
genuine, but ofa first century record, that the
apostles were to speak with new tongues." Irenseus*
"
understood foreign languages to have been used, for

he writes, " They spake with all kinds of tongues "
{iravToSairal's yXcoa-a-ai^), and adds that the gift was
possessed by many in his day, though he does not
claim to have heard any of them. S. Paul's illustra-
tive quotation from Isaiah, "By men of strange
tongues" (cTepoyXocxraroi^) " and by the lips of strangers
will I speak unto this people," naturally implies
diversity of language.
But all these objections, important though they are,
become as nothing to my mind compared with the
rejection of S. Luke's testimony in the Acts of the
Apostles.
* Adv. Hcer.^ v. 6, i.
S. Luke writes that men of fifteen nations or tribes

expressed their astonishment in the words, "Are
not all these which speak Galileans ? And how hear
we them every one in our own language, wherein
we were born ? " Dr. Farrar replies, " We have been
taking too literally S. Luke's dramatic reproduction
of the vague murmurs of a throng who mistook the
nature of thegift of which they witnessed the reality."
But S. Luke himself endorses their view, for he writes

in calm history, "They began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." We
have here something different from " dramatic repro-
duction." Either we must admit that diversity of
language was employed, or we are forced to accept
the contention of Meyer, that S. Luke's account is
"not historical." And if we once admit that S.

Luke's account is not historical, I do not see how
we are to hold that the Acts of the Apostles was
written by S. Luke or by anyone of the first century.
For this is a different case from that of an " editorial
note" in the Gospels. Inaccuracies in those were

caused by the imperfect knowledge in the editor ; *
but S. Luke was a companion of S. Paul, who
gift in a high degree.
possessed the S. Luke also
regarded the one of the greatest wonders
gift as
of those wondrous days. Even if he had never

heard it exercised, he must, at least, have conversed
about it with S. Paul, or with some other person who
possessed it. had probably become
For, though it
rare at the time when he wrote, it had been in full

force during the first days of his discipleship. The
* Composition of the Four Gospds^ p. ii6 ff.
historian of the Church, collecting materials, can never
have been so entirely mistaken on a point of the
greatest interest and importance.
But further, if it be true, as I have maintained,*
that the early sections of the Acts of the Apostles
are based on oral teaching, the case is still more
difficult ; for the oral sections must have been drawn

up at a very early date, when hundreds of Christians
were living who had been present at the Pentecostal
manifestation. There is no reason to doubt that the
oral sections were taught at Corinth, and even stirred
up the Corinthians to covet earnestly the gift. The
Corinthians themselves would have corrected the
accounts if they differed so widely from their own
experience of the truth.
In short, if the narrative in the Acts of the
Apostles be not historical but "dramatic," it will
be difficult to maintain that the whole book as we
now have it was not put forth early in the second
century, the former part of it being based on oral
teaching altered and adapted to suit the false and
exaggerated notions respecting the nature of the gift
of tongues current in that age, the latter part on a
journal kept by some companion of S. Paul, which
journal the editor somewhat carelessly embedded
in his According to such a supposition, S.
work.
Luke cannot have been the author of the book.
This view I am not prepared to admit, least of all in
support of a theory which S. Paul's words are so far
from demanding that they appear to me absolutely to
exclude it.
* Composition of the Four Gospels , p. 91.

Must we, then, hold that the gift of tongues at

Pentecost was different in kind from " speaking with
a tongue" at Corinth? Were the apostles at first
endowed with the power of using language which

they had never learned, but, as love grew cold or
men neglected to put the gift to a proper use, did
it degenerate into rhapsody? Had the Corinthians
heard of the miracle of the first days, and were they,
in their ambition, falsely emulating it? Is there
something more in S. Paul's disparaging words than
appears on the surface? Can it be tha^he is repress-
ing the indignation of his heart ? .
;
It may be so. Some view of thisl<ind appears to

be accepted by the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol,
Mr. Lias, and other recent English commentators.
To those who cannot accept the solution which I
shall presently propound (and there mustvbe many
such), I would commend this as the Wst escape from
the difBculty. The question how such power could
have been bestowed will then remain unanswered.
It was simply the gift of God. But in any case the
evidence shows that the gift was granted on rare
occasions for a few moments to a select number of
persons by the unknown operation of the Holy
Spirit. Those who used it, at least at Corinth and in
the case of S. Paul himself, neither understood what
they were saying nor had any power of controlling
the flow of words, save perhaps that of ceasing to
speak. And it was simply a sign to unbelievers. It
arrested the attention of those who could not other-

wise be induced to listen. When it had done that
its utility departed.
U
II.
Having now settled preliminaries, let us turn to

the opinion of the late Dean Alford, which is
differentfrom both the ancient and the modern view.

S. Luke's "speaking with other tongues" he held
to be identical with S. Paul's "speaking with a
tongue," and in both cases there was, he maintained,
"a sudden and powerful inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, by which the disciples uttered, not of their
own mind, but as mouthpieces of the Spirit, the
praises of God in various languages, hitherto, and
possibly at the time itself, unknown to them." *
Change " possibly " into " certainly," and this view
will meet the facts of the case. The utterances were
spoken, as Dean Stanley said, "in ecstasy," the
speaker being as unconscious of what he was saying,
and as incapable of recollecting what he had said
and done when the ecstasy was over, as one who
talks in his sleep or in the hypnotic state.
If the reader asks how this could be done, I would
first refer him to the mysterious phenomenon of
demoniacal possession. If this was something more
than brain or nerve disorder, and was the effect of
an external power so completely taking hold of a
man as to control his thoughts and his words, how
much more may have been accomplished by the
Holy Spirit? The very term "speaking with a
tongue " may have tongue was the
signified that the
human member used, the thoughts and words were
supplied from elsewhere,
* Commentary on Acts ii. 4.
But as the real nature of demoniacal possession

is unknown, I would point out that another and
simpler explanation is at least possible. The
phenomenon of " speaking with tongues " may-
have been the result of an abnormally excited
memory.
That people should under certain conditions speak
passages of considerable length in a language which
they do not understand, by recalling and repeating
what they have heard others say, it may be years
before, is a well-tested fact.
In certain —
abnormal states as madness, febrile
delirium, somnambulism, catalepsy, etc. "a multi- —
tude of facts," writes Mr. E. H. Lecky, "which are
so completely forgotten that no effort of the will
can revive them, and that the statement of them calls
up no reminiscences .... may be reproduced with
intense vividness."
Persons during delirium have been heard to speak
in a language which they had known in their child-
hood, but which for many years had passed from
their memory. And it cannot be shown that any
impression once made on the tablet of the mind is
ever fully forgotten, for sensations long dormant
may be awakened by some startling crisis.
Sir Francis Beaufort, in describing his experience
when rescued from drowning, said that "every incident
of his former life seemed to glance across his
recollection in a retrograde succession, not in mere
outline, but the picture being filled with every minute
and collateral feature," forming " a kind of panoramic
view of his entire existence, each act of it being
accompanied by a sense of right and wrong."*
This fact is confirmed by numerous other examples.
But to return to the question of unknown languages.
A case is narrated by S. T. Coleridge of a young
woman of four or five and twenty, who could neither
read nor write, and who was seized with a nervous
fever,during which she continuously talked Latin,
Greek, and Hebrew in very pompous tones and with
a most distinct enunciation. Sheets of her ravings
were taken down from her mouth, and at last it
was found that she had been for some years servant
to a Protestant pastor, who was in the habit of
walking up and down a passage of his house adjoin-
ing the kitchen and reading aloud to himself portions
of his favourite authors.
In the Contemporary Review for January, 1886,
Mr. Richard Heath has collected a number of
instances of abnormal memory, quite apart from
fever, in an article on " The Little Prophets of the
Cevennes."
A girl of seven years, who, when awake, was dull,
awkward, and without any taste for music, warbled in
her sleep in a manner exactly resembling the sweetest

tones of a small violin. She performed, in a clear
and accurate manner, elaborate pieces of music. A
year or two passed away, and she began to discourse
on a variety of topics in a way which excited the
astonishment of those who knew her limited means
of information. She was known to conjugate
correctly Latin verbs, and to speak several sentences
in French.
* Kay, Memory, p. 237.
The case of the Little Prophets is still more to the

point, because we have not isolated instances, but as
many as six hundred affected in the same way at once.
The manifestation lasted over thirteen years, bursting
out at intervals from the year 1688 to 1701 A.D. It
did not take place during sleep, but in broad daylight.
Children of three years old and upwards preached
sermons in correct French, which they could not
ordinarily use, with appropriate emphasis and gestures
impossible to a child. Some of the sermons were
three-quarters of an hour long. The Prophets " first
swooned and appeared without any feeling, then

broke out into exhortations — fervent, eloquent,
correct, appropriate, mostly in good
well-chosen,
French." There was nothing hysterical or wildly
excited about their manner, only they were insensible
to pain and could not be induced to stop. "The
boldness of the young boy astonished me," writes
an eye-witness. "It was, indeed, a marvel to see
an ignorant and timid child undertake to teach
the people, to preach in a language he was incapable
of speaking at another time, expressing himself
magnificently, and presiding like a bishop in an
assembly of Christians."
All these phenomena, which a few of the priests
at the time attributed to demoniacal possession, are
confidently put down by Mr. Heath to a memory
unduly excited by the most appalling persecutions.
The children were one and all repeating the sermons
which had been preached by their pastors long
before. If this can be done, it is enough for my
purpose. We need not follow Mr. Heath into his
further contention, that some at least of the children
were reproducing what their parents or ancestors had
heard long before the children were born. Or, if we do
so,it shall be to show that science also demands faith,
and that the supposable possibilities of the memory-

are greater than is commonly thought. Individuals
die, but their offspring carry on the memory of all
the impressions which their ancestors acquired or

received. What we call instinct in animals for —
example, the faculty by which a bird not only always
builds the same kind of nest, but without any teach-
ing knows how to set about it — is probably to a great
extent inherited memory, which is strongest in those
who are intellectually weakest. " We are one person
with our ancestors." And " if we are unable to
conceive memory working at such a pitch," as it
did in the Little Prophets, " it is because our imagina-

tion, not being adequately sustained by knowledge,
is unequal to conceive the degree to which this sacred
lore had been burnt into the soul of a long-suffering
people."
But I leave this question to the men of science.
It is enough for my purpose that they maintain that
" it is impossible to put any limits to the power of
memory." For if only the more ordinary manifesta-

tions of an abnormally excited memory be conceded
me, the gift of tongues will cease to be, as Meyer
said, impossible and inconceivable. Exercised within
the limits which the evidence shows it to have been
confined, becomes so simple and natural, that some

it
persons, who do not greatly value the removal of

a stumbling-block from the way of the Faith, will
accuse me of rationalistically explaining away what

the Church has ahvays held to be a stupendous
miracle.
Such a charge would surely be more fairly brought
against those who advocate what I have called the
" modern view," according to which there was neither
miracle nor mystery in the matter, but all the
phenomena were due to excitement or hysteria (real
at Pentecost, sometimes simulated at Corinth),
which the ignorance of the age attributed to super-
natural causes.
According to my view, though the means used may
have been in large measure natural, yet the provi-
dential ordering which brought the event about at
that particular crisis was miraculous. It was a
miracle, not of power, but of providence. As in
the draught of fishes or the stilling of the storm,

there may have been little or nothing supernatural
in the occurrence itself; the miracle lay in its occur-
ring at the precise moment when it did. The choice
of time, the preparation of the speakers beforehand,
the selection of suitable words, the restriction of the
gift to particular persons betoken the work of Him
who 'moves in a mysterious way His wonders to
perform.' But the exciting cause may finally have
been, not mere mental tension, but the direct impulse
of the Holy Spirit working in that way. We do
not necessarily destroy the miracle when we point
out the means by which it may have been wrought.
If be objected, that according to my showing
it
there was some degree of deception about it, for the

ignorance of the age magnified its mystery, and even
296 NEW TESTAMExNT PROBLEMS
S. Paul cannot have known its real cause : that, I
reply, is true of God's working in every age. Our

ignorance necessarily increases or diminishes its
mystery. If God communicate with men at

is to
all, we cannot see how He can do so without making
use of the state of human knowledge at the time.

He who made the bow in the cloud a sign to the
patriarchs could not have done so in an age which
familiarly calls it the rainbow and explains its origin by
the laws of optics.
At no time or place were there better opportunities
formen to overhear religious addresses in foreign
languages than in Jerusalem at the time of Christ.
Pilgrims from all parts of the world filled the city
with foreign speech. Many earnest preachers must
have seized on the opportunity to make what to many
was Holy City a turning point
their only visit to the
in their religious lives. Such a discourse, overheard
but not comprehended, while some foreigner in the
market-place or street corner addressed a small knot
of his compatriots in his native tongue, would suffice.
The words, the intonations, the impassioned appeals
of the orator could be reproduced by this marvellous
power which we have been describing, as accurately
as by the latest discoveries in modern electricity.
In support of this hypothesis, it is to be noticed
that they "who spake with tongues" are never said
to have given utterance to distinctly Christian teach-
ing. They
did but record "the mighty works of
God " as
any Rabbi would have done. It is plain
that the words spoken in the ecstatic state, even
when interpreted or understood, were of no special
utility to Christians. Accustomed to the higher tone

of S. Paul and his evangelists, the Corinthians found
little profit in these Rabbinic exhortations. Even the
apostle's utterances " in a tongue " were deficient in
spirituality. " As it is, brethren, if I come to you

speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless
I speak to you by revelation or by knowledge or
by prophecy or by teaching?" The words spoken
"in a tongue" must be derived from some better
source than they ever yet had been, if they were,
when interpreted, to appeal successfully to the
conscience of Christians. S. Peter's speech, delivered
in his native Aramaic on the day of Pentecost, has
been preserved to us at least in outline, but all the
utterances of the tongues, both there and elsewhere,
have perished. They contained no new revelation to
keep them alive.
Some mockers, we read, attributed the utterances
to intoxication. Dean Alford pointed out,
These, as
might be the native Jews, to whom the strange
languages would be unintelligible, while the words
spoken in their own language would contain no
sign.
We are told that some of the hundred and twenty
spoke more than others, " in proportion as the Spirit
enabled them to speak." Some, perhaps, used several
languages in succession, some only one. They appear
to have burst out all at once, mixing with the crowd,
and speaking simultaneously. So they did afterwards
at Corinth. But what had been effective amongst
a multitude in the open air ill-suited the four walls
of a church. The assembly became such a Babel
that a stranger coming in and not understanding the
languages would be likely, S. Paul feared, to account
them all as mad.
The rapt ecstatic state, the unconscious utterances,
the blank of memory when the speaker regained his
faculties will account for S. Paul's classing this as the
lowest of spiritual gifts. The recipient was entirely
passive. Some assurance he obtained :
" He esta-
blished himself" ; but if all our gifts are multiplied
for us when we share them with others, speaking with
tongues brought no such blessing. When the novelty
was worn off, it became a weariness to the Church, an
occasion for discontent and jealousy. There was
danger that it would cease to be a spiritual power and
degenerate into nothing but ecstasy. " In the church
I had rather speak five words with my understanding,
that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words
in a tongue."
We gift of tongues was granted
read that the
on day of Pentecost, at the conversion of
the
Cornelius, and of the twelve men at Ephesus, in the
Church of Corinth, and in the case of S. Paul. We
have no indication of its presence in other churches,
nor are we entitled to regard it as anything but rare
and exceptional. When, however, it was granted, it
was, as is usual with God's gifts, granted with pro-

fusion. At Corinth " every one had .... a tongue."
But S. Paul's prediction, " As for tongues they shall
cease," was probably very soon fulfilled. If, as
Irenseus affirms, isolated cases occurred even in the
second century, they were few and For thefinal.
incoherent cries of the Montanists, the Irvingites, and

others, I take to be different in kind, as it has been

usual to regard them.
One difficulty remains. What must we understand
by the " gift of interpretation " ?
There were no interpreters on the day of Pentecost.

The several nations heard their own language spoken,
and needed not the assistance of a translator. But
S. Paul in the first Epistle to the Corinthians alludes
six times to the class of interpreters. First, in xii.
10 he reckons "interpretation of tongues" as one
of the spiritual gifts. Secondly, in xii. 30 he asks,
" Do all interpret ? " Thirdly, in xiv. 5 he writes,
" Greater is he that prophesieth, than he that speaketh
with tongues, except he interpret." Fourthly, in
verse 13 he directs, "Let him that speaketh with
a tongue pray that he may interpret." Fifthly, in
verse 26 he Every one hath .... an inter-
says, "
pretation and lastly, in verse 27, "If any man
" ;
speak with a tongue, let it be by two at a time,

or at the most three, and in turn, and let one
interpret."
We have seen that if, according to the ancient
view, the speaker understood what he was saying,
the office of the interpreter was unnecessary and ;
if, according to the modern view, speaking with

tongues consisted of incoherent cries, interpretation
was impossible.
According to our view, interpretation would be
both possible and necessary but, as it is contrary to
;
God's usual working to supply supernaturally what

can be readily produced by human effort, we should
expect it to be assigned to one who understood
the language. And when S. Paul writes, "Let one
interpret," he perhaps means no more than this. For
at a port like Corinth, all languages would be spoken
and few languages would not be understood by some
member of the Church, which was largely composed
of slaves, the very class of persons who in ancient
days undertook this kind of work. The "gift of
interpreting" may thus have depended on a know-
ledge of the language, supplemented by the power to
speak boldly and acceptably in public.
anyone thinks that a "spiritual gift" must
If
necessarily convey to him who was endued with it
some more distinctly miraculous power than this, let
him remember that S. Paul in the same list classes
among spiritual gifts " faith," " the word of wisdom,"
and " the word of power."
But S. Paul contemplates the case of a man acting
as his own he writes, "Greater is he
interpreter, for
that prophesieth, than he that speaketh with tongues,
except he interpret," and again, " Let him pray that
he may interpret."
We need not suppose that the apostle expected
that, though the " speaking with a tongue " was done
in ecstasy, the interpretation was to be made con-
sciously when the was over. S. Paul
ecstatic state
" spake with tongues " himself, and knew the limita-
tions under which the gift was exercised. If my

theory is right, the speaker on recovering conscious-
ness had no recollection of what he had said. And
it is not probable that S. Paul, knowing this, bids him
seek and pray for a new power a power which

:
appears, at least to us, to be different in kind. Much

though S. Paul wished to rebuke the spiritual pride

of the Corinthians, he would hardly take this means
of doing so.
Did he, then, intend that both the speech and
the interpretation should be spoken in ecstasy?
This is possible, and may have been brought about
by the providential ordering of the Holy Spirit,
though it is difficult for us to see the necessity of
it. As, however, we do not know the extent to
which the "interpretations" were exact translations
of what had been said, an utterance in a foreign
tongue, followed immediately by an utterance in
the vernacular, might be popularly mistaken for a
speech and its interpretation, provided no one was
present who understood both languages ; for the
general tenor of these utterances must usually have
been much the same. Moreover, S. Paul is not
describing anything which (as far as we know) ever
had been done, or was done, but something which he
(perhaps from imperfect knowledge) supposes to be
attainable.
But I incline myself to a simpler explanation.
The term " interpretation " may not only have been
applied to bond fide translations of utterances in a
tongue, but to any utterance made in the vernacular
during the state of ecstasy, so that when S. Paul
writes "Pray that ye may interpret," he merely means
"Pray that your utterance may be granted in the
vernacular," that thus it may be directly profitable to
the hearers. That utterances in the vernacular were
made in ecstasy, we know from the account of the
day of Pentecost, where natives of Judaea are
enumerated amongst those who heard the disciples
speak in their own language. And even the Little
Prophets sometimes preached in their native patois^
reproducing, as I suppose, the words which had been
used by the peasants in family worship.
I have written this paper chiefly from a sense of
the very serious danger of calling in question the

historical truth of the Acts of the Apostles, but also
in the hope of helping those who find the common
views on this difficult subject a trial to their faith.
My prayer is that the truth in this, as in all other
matters, may ultimately prevail, whether it be found
to accord with my own ideas or not.
XIX.
THE BEAUTIFUL GATE OF

THE TEMPLE
Acts iii. i-io.
THE translation "beautiful" gate or door (wpala

TTvXr], Ovpa) is not correct according to deriva-
tion or classical usage, wpalo^ coming from (opa
should mean "timely," and is applied to fruits in
their season or human beings in their prime. The
idea of beauty is foreign to it, except as an infer-
ence ; must be expressed by koXo^.
that However,
already in the Septuagint the meaning " beautiful " is
established, and S. Luke, over whom the Septuagint
exercised a paramount influence, naturally used the
word in this sense. We may therefore set aside the
conjecture favoured by Lightfoot, the learned author
of Jlorcs Hebraicce^ that wpala is a translation of
m'pin. Nothing is known of such a name, and
the Vulgate rendering speciosa points to the sense in
which S. Luke's word was understood traditionally.
No other author is known to mention any gate
or door of the Temple bearing the name of
" beautiful." We are therefore left to inference and
conjecture in determining its locality. Opinion has
fluctuated, and still fluctuates, between four gates
303
two external and two internal, (i) The gate leading
to the city over the Tyropoeon Bridge, at the south-
west corner of the outer court ; (2) the gate
"Shushan" or "the Lily," leading from the centre
of Solomon's Porch on the east side of the Temple
to thebrook Kidron, Gethsemane, and the Mount of
Olives (3) Nicanor's Gate, leading from the Court of
;
the Women, through the Court of Israel, into the

Court of the Priests (4) the eastern gate of the
;
Court of the Women. That this last is the true

position it will be my endeavour to show.
It is well known that there are two words in the
Greek Testament which are indifferently translated
" Temple " in the Authorised English Version, viz.,
6 moj, which is the house proper the sanctuary, the
;
church as opposed to the churchyard and to lepov, ;
" the holy ground," which includes the whole of the
sacred precincts. And as the church could only be

entered by officiating priests, the churchyard alone
was trodden by our Lord and by the people in
general. Herod, however, had surrounded it with
highly decorated porticoes, in which people were
sheltered from sun and rain in those latter days.
Now when we examine S. Luke's narrative closely,
we see that the beggar was lying outside " the holy
ground " he asked alms of those who were entering
;
" into the holy ground." After the miracle was per-
formed he entered with S. Peter and S. John " into
the holy ground," and when the service was over the
people retired into Solomon's Porch, where S. Peter
addressed them.
Hence Captain Conder and others have argued
THE BEAUTIFUL GATE 305
that the "Beautiful Gate"

was that which led into the
Court of the Gentiles from the city by way of the
Tyropceon Bridge, while yet others have fastened on
the gate " Shushan " and for many years I con-
;
sidered that one or other of these gates must be

intended. Captain Conder's position seemed much
the better of the two, because S. Peter and the greiut
mass of the worshippers would enter from the city
by the Tyropceon Bridge, whereas only a few
villagers from outside would be likely to approach
by Shushan. And the lame man would be sure to
select a frequented spot, if he could find an un-
occupied corner.
"Nulla crepido vdk.QZXV—Juvenal v. 8.
It is, however, much to be noticed that S. Luke

fluctuates between " gate " {jrvKri) and " door "
(OJpa).
(Acts iii. 2, "gate" in the ancient world
10.) If
belonged to a wall, and " door " to a house, we may
be sure that " beautiful door " would not be applied
to any of the outer gates of the Temple, which
were highly fortified. Indeed, the Temple was the
strongest fortress in the city, and its approaches were
defended with all the means known to ancient war-
fare. A "door" points to some internal entrance
leading from room to room. A variation so slight
and incidental is surely full of significance.
There is good a priori reason to think that the
expression " holy ground " would be used sometimes
in an exoteric sense to include all of the thirty-five
acres which constituted the " mountain of the house,"
sometimes in an esoteric sense to designate those
portions only of the Temple which were really
holy, because no Gentile foot might tread them on
penalty of death. To these alone, I maintain, could
the grander word dyiog be applied.
There are seven degrees in holiness according to
Jewish reckoning: (i) All the world is holy, for
"the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof";
(2) Jerusalem is the holy city (3) the Temple ;
precincts are holy ground ; (4) the sacred enclosure

within them is in a special sense holy; (5) the
Court of the Priests is holier still(6) the paog, or
;
sanctuary, surpasses all these ; but (7) yields to the

part beyond the veil —the holy of holies, the very
dwelling-place of Jehovah.
Now when a Jew boasted of his greatness,
Palestine is the holy land, Jerusalem the holy city,
the Temple the holy place he magnifies and ex- —
pands everything in the exuberance of his heart.
But the narrower exclusive feeling is always close
in the background. " This people which knoweth
not the Law is accursed." " All are not Israel which
are of Israel." "Israel after the flesh" is distinct
from " the Israel of God "
and assuredly the Court
;
of the Gentiles was profane and not holy.

Indeed, there was much to make him think so.
Apart from the occasional presence of Gentiles this
court was a mart for the sale of oxen, sheep, and
doves, and for the purchase of the half-shekel for
the Temple tax sacred : transactions indeed ; but
anyone who knows how barter is conducted in
the East will appreciate the feelings of scruple.
The loud chaffering of purchasers, the lowing of
THE BEAUTIFUL GATE 307
oxen, the stench and dung, made this part of the

Temple profane indeed.
Now no question that the Court of the
there is
Gentiles is Indeed to lepov

regularly called "holy."
in most cases undoubtedly points to it or its porticoes.
But we have a good deal more than a priori reasons
for holding that sometimes the stricter sense prevails.
Thus in Acts xxi. 28 the charge is brought against
S. Paul that he had brought Gentiles " into the holy
ground," eh to lepov. This cannot mean the whole
Temple area, for Gentiles might freely roam over
the greater part of this at all times of the day,
even during the most solemn festivals. The sense
must be restricted to the inner enclosure, viz., the
Court of theWomen or the Court of the Priests,
from which Gentiles were rigorously excluded. In
the next verse the same restricted meaning is
plainly required. It is probable also in xxi. 30

xxii. 17; xxiv. 6, 12, 18; xxv. 8; xxvi. 21. And
if these passages, or any of them, be granted there
can be no difficulty in extending it to the third
chapter and the Beautiful Gate.
If, then, it be granted that some inner door,
leading from the Court of the Gentiles to the more
holy parts, is intended, how shall we determine
which door? Nicanor's Gate, made of Corinthian
bronze, is especially extolled for beauty by Josephus,
and hence has been selected by the late Professor
Lumby and others. But there seem to be insuper-
able objections to this view. Nicanor's Gate did
not lead from profane into holy ground, but
from the Court of the Women into the Court
of the Priests * nor is it probable that a beggar
;
would be placed where few people passed. More-

over, as S. Peter was "going up to catch the hour
of prayer" he was not going into the Court of the
Priests to offer sacrifice, but into the Court of the
Women for worship. Now worshippers entered by
the eastern gate, and thus we are brought to that
position.
For the Court of the Women was the regular place
of assembly for the services. Women sat in a
gallery above, the men stood on the ground-floor
below. There was, I estimate, standing ground for
about 15,000 people, which, except at the great
festivals, would be ample accommodation.
Many authorities, e.g. Dr. Edersheim, agree with
me about the position of the Gate, but not for the
reason which I have given, nor with the degree of
assurance of which the case admits. The fact that
TO tepov is used in the New Testament in two
senses, has, I believe, hitherto escaped notice,
although it is intrinsically probable, and on exami-
nation certain.
* The so-called "Court of Israel," or '*

Court of the Men," was not
a court at all, but the narrow space between the walls, which were
double everywhere.
XX.
APOLLOS
A STUDY IN PRE-PAULINE CHRISTIANITY
w HEN S.
settled
Paul in his third missionary journey
down at Ephesus, he found that a
Christian Church had long been established there.
Possibly it dated from the great day of Pentecost,
when "Jews from Asia," of which province Ephesus

was the capital, had been present at the Feast.
(Acts ii. 9.) His old acquaintances, Aquila and
Priscilla, were amongst the members. His future
helper, Apollos, had but recently departed. There
were twelve other brethren, of whom we shall have
something to say presently, and doubtless there were
a few more of whom nothing is known. That it was
a small and struggling community is indicated by
the fact that it had never separated from Judaism.
Whatever of special love-feasts, eucharists, and other
Christian ordinances were kept, must have been cele-
brated, as they usually were in those earliest days
(Acts ii. 46), in the private houses of the brethren.
Public services were supplied by the synagogue. S.
Paul, on his first visit, joined himself to that syna-
gogue and preached on the Sabbath. (Acts xviii. 19.)
On his second visit he did so again. It was his rule
309
"to become a Jew to the Jews, that he might gain
the Jews." And either experience had taught him
how to avoid giving offence, or the Jews of that
synagogue were unusually docile. Perhaps, having
welcomed the Christians from the first, they had in-
curred the enmity of other synagogues, and did not
like to recede. For in a city like Ephesus there
must have been several synagogues. Anyhow, three
months elapsed before the apostle found it advisable
to separate the brethren.
The first thing which struck S. Paul, on his second
and has perplexed the interpreters of the Acts

visit,
of the Apostles ever since, was the existence of the

twelve brethren, who " had been baptized into John's
baptism." (Acts xix. i.)
These men were in the same condition in which

Apollos had recently been. The two cases are
placed together by the historian, and will throw
light upon one another.
What, then, was exactly the position of Apollos,
when Aquila and Priscilla "took him unto them,
and expounded to him the way of God more
accurately " ? (Acts xviii. 26.)
He was, we "an eloquent man and mighty

read,
in the Scriptures."So much might be predicated of
many a Jewish Rabbi. But he " had been instructed
in the way of the Lord, and spake and taught accu-
rately the facts concerning Jesus." He was there-
fore a Christian, and, indeed, in some sort, a
Christian minister. He was "fervent in spirit," but
he had this defect that "he knew only the baptism
of John."
APOLLOS 311
Now when we combine this statement with S.

Paul's question to the Twelve, " Unto what then
were ye baptized "
and their
? answer, " Unto John's
baptism," becomes evident that the words are not
it
to be taken in any transcendental sense, but as a

plain allegation of fact. Apollos and the others had
received, not Christian, but pre-Christian baptism.
It is usuallyassumed that they had all been bap-
tizedby one of John's disciples, and not a few
have inferred that the twelve had been baptized by
Apollos himself To me it seems almost certain
that the rite had in all cases been administered by
John the Baptist in person.
For these men were Jews, and every true Israelite
recognised the moral obligation of going on pil-
grimage to the David at least once in his

city of
life. A place like Ephesus sent many scores of
Jews every Pentecost to keep the Feast. Jews of
Jerusalem also migrated to the city of Artemis, and
settled down there for the purpose of trade. It is
practically certain that there would be at least

twelve men then living at Ephesus, who in their
youth had shared in the general enthusiasm, when
"all Jerusalem and all Jud?ea and all the region
round about Jordan" had gone forth to John's
baptism.
For a short season John had in very truth been
"a burning and a shining light." But I see no
indication that his work was continued by his dis-
ciples after his death. Already in his lifetime he
had begun to " decrease." Jesus " made and bap-
tized more disciples than John." And when once
John had pointed out the Lamb of God, his work
was accomplished. It was impossible that he
should appoint any other successor than our Lord.
Moreover, if these twelve men had been baptized
by Apollos, why did he not impart to them his
more perfect knowledge before leaving Ephesus?
He was in no hurry to go. According to the
Western text of the Acts, certain Corinthians, who
were sojourning in Ephesus, invited him to return
with them to their country. To leave his converts,
without so much as introducing them to Aquila, is
a more heartless thing than we like to suppose him
guilty of No one can have had such claims upon
him as these firstfruits of his ministry.
Aquila, if I read his character aright, was no
orator. He could not stand up in the synagogue,
like Apollos, and address the congregation. But
he had worked side by side with S. Paul at their
common trade. And he invited to his house and
held private conversations with such as were willing
to hear a plain man talk on religious questions.
He had initiated Apollos into certain mysteries of
the faith, and he would gladly have initiated the
others, if they had consulted him.
But we have yet to grapple with the central diffi-
culty of this remarkable narrative. How comes it
that Apollos, a Christian minister, " knew only the
baptism of John "?
Dr. F. Blass, Professor of Classical Philology in

the University of Halle, put forward in his Com-
mentary on the Acts of the Apostles the idea that
Apollos had learned what he knew of Christianity
APOLLOS 313
from some written book, and not from the mouth

of a Christian teacher.
If such a book existed at that early date (about
50 A.D.), we should allagree with Dr. Blass that it
must have been S. Mark's Gospel, or some first
edition thereof.
It is much to be noticed that of late years inde-
pendent investigators, working on different lines and
from different standpoints, have been forced to the
conclusion that our Gospels, or their component
parts, were in existence at a very early date. We
who remember the time when the most strenuous
efforts of our apologists were needed to prevent the
Gospels from being relegated to the second century,
cannot but rejoice at the change which has come
over critical opinion. Far be it from me to quarrel
with anyone who, being a competent scholar, puts
forth opinions so exceedingly welcome.
But still it is our bounden duty dispassionately to
examine the grounds for this opinion, and to reject
it, or at least postpone its acceptance, if we are not
satisfied.
Hence the editor of the Expository Times * perti-

nently pointed out that the word " instructed " in the
sentence :
" Apollos was instructed in the way of the
Lord (Jesus)," is the rare and significant KaTrjxeia-Oait
"to be catechized," which is expressly assigned to
oral teaching.
If this objection could not be removed. Dr. Blass's
theory must fall to the ground. And therefore he
soon replied to it, and argued that Karnx^lcrQai has
* Expository Times (T. and T. Clark), vol. vii. p. 241.
not a very strict meaning as to where the instruction
comes from, whether from a book directly or from
a person. He continues that in Rom. ii. i8,
and in John xii. 34, aKovM, "to hear,"
KaTrjxela-Oai,
are used of book knowledge, even as Plato {Phcedrus,
268 c.) writes e/c /Si^Xiov iroQev ciKovcrag, "having
caught up from some book." Thus, he concludes,
even aKovco itself does not necessarily imply oral
instruction.
I myself unable to agree with these exposi-
find
tions. To
begin with the last, Plato is describing a
quack doctor, a mere ignoramus, who sets up for a
physician because he has happened upon a few
pillsand "has heard [some prescriptions] from a
pamphlet." It seems to me that there is a sting in
the condensed phrase " Heard from a pamphlet."
:
Plato wishes to insinuate that the impostor can

neither read nor write, but has employed some one
to decipher the MS. for him.
Again, the accomplished Jew of Rom. ii. 18, who
poses as a guide to the blind, an instructor of fools,
a teacher of infants, "cannot be one of the vulgar
crowd of Jews, but must be able to study the law
for himself, like the Jews of Beroea." True, but
even such a Rabbi was once an unconscious babe,
and began, like Timothy, "to know the Holy
Writings," with other boys at the feet of the
Chazzatiy who "catechized them out of the law."
Learning by heart, as I have shown above,* was
almost the only conception of education in the East.
And the catechumens were certainly not allowed to
* See page 94.
APOLLOS 315
finger the sacred rolls.Their teacher read a passage

to them they (probably) copied it down upon their
;
tablets, and then recited it, like modern Chinese

by noise and
boys, at the top of their voices, until
repetition "was dinned into them," as the word
it
implies, and so became a life possession.

Learning the law by heart is so contrary to
modern habits that a Western reader does not
readily grasp the idea. Yet when the Pharisees
said, " This multitude which knoweth not the law
is accursed" (John vii. 49), they were speaking of
men who, from their tender years, had habitually
heard the Pentateuch read in the synagogue, and
were far better acquainted with it than most devout
Englishmen are with the New Testament. Only
as they could not repeat it verbatim, they fell short
of the standard which the Pharisees expected.
To come to the next passage (John xii. 34), " We
have heard out of our Bible that the Messiah abideth
for ever." The Pharisees, who speak thus, may
either be recalling the catechetical lessons of their
youthful days, or they may be proudly boasting of
their regularity in attendance at the synagogue.
Or, as our Gospels are not built upon the reports of
shorthand writers, but on the free recollections of
" illiterate
men," the exact words which the Pharisees
used may have been altered into what a layman
would say. There are plenty of ways of escape
for those who question whether "heard" can ever
mean " read."
But, indeed, as avayvwvai, " to read," means strictly
" to read aloud," the familiar phrase, " Did ye never
read?" points, I think, to the public reading of
Scriptures in the synagogue rather than to private
study. Copies of the Septuagint may have been
fairly common amongst Greek-speaking Jews, but
the Hebrew Bible was not so accessible. In the
face of " Ye search the Scriptures " (John v. 39), we
can hardly doubt that some Rabbis possessed the
sacred rolls, but at a later date touching them
" defiledthe hands," and must have been dis-
couraged both at that time and long before, or
such a notion would never have arisen.
I admit that the sentence " I heard from
freely
Mr. Smith this morning that he had been ill " con-
veys to the educated Englishman the idea that you
had received a letter from him in which the fact was
stated. But the transference is due to the penny
post, which has superseded the verbal message of
the courier. My contention is that oral teaching in
the time of the apostles was so familiar an institu-
tion that the word which denotes it must be sup-
posed to have its proper meaning, unless the context
demands some other rendering. Now KarrjxelcrOaL
occurs only eight times Testament.
in the New
And in six of these 4, (Luke
Acts xviii. 25,
i.
Rom. ii. 18, I Cor. xiv. 19, Gal. vi. 6 dis) it seems
to me to have its full meaning. Twice (Acts xxi.
21, 24) it is used in its primitive sense respecting
the Church at Jerusalem, which "has had dinned
into its ears" the falsehood that S. Paul induced
the Jews of the Dispersion to give up circumcising
their children and offering sacrifices in the temple
when they became followers of Christ.
APOLLOS 317
It may be that clearer examples of uKovcrai, in the

wider sense of /maOeiv, can be produced from classical
authors. These would require to be examined on
their own merits. I only ask for delay and con-
sideration before we accept the laxity of use for
which Dr. Blass contends. I find nothing to
correspond to it in the Septuagint, which has very
great weight in determining the meaning of New
Testament words.
Dr. Blass admits that S. Mark's Gospel already
at that early date must have reached Apollos in its
present mutilated form, the concluding verses being
lost, which I think probably corresponded to Matt,
xxviii. 8-10, 16-20, in the latter of which the
disciples are ordered to baptize into the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
But this admission throws immense difficulties in the
way. For if the Gospel circulated so many years
during S. Mark's lifetime, why did he not replace
these lost verses ? He was alive when 2 Tim. iv. 1
was written (A.D. 66), and even when i Peter v. 13

was written — probably a much later date.
Again, if S. Mark's Gospel had been widely circu-
lated in primitive times, how came S. Matthew and
S. Luke to present so many variations from it?
Much longer time is needed for the oral stage to
produce the state of text which we actually find in
the synoptists.
For these reasons, although I strongly hold that
St. Mark's Gospel —or about two-thirds of it
existed in oral form some years before A.D. 50, I
do not see my way to concede that the written

Gospel was in existence at that date. I shall offer
some further reasons for this reluctance below.
But to return to Apollos. He had been baptized
by John. He had been taught to expect the
Messiah at once. Possibly Jesus had been pointed
out to him as such. He then, according to the
Western text of Acts xviii. 25, returns to Alexandria,
where rumours would reach him from time to time
of what was happening in Palestine. He would
hear of our Lord's ministry, of His mighty works.
His rejection, crucifixion, and resurrection. For a
long time report would give him only the broad
outlines of the facts, but in the course of twelve or
fifteen years one of those catechists, whom the
Church of Jerusalem sent out in large numbers,
visited the metropolis of Egypt. This itinerant was
neither apostle, evangelist, nor preacher. He had
learned by heart, and was anxious to teach others,
" the facts concerning Jesus," and he formed a class
for that purpose. Apollos became one of the pupils,

and, like Theophilus, was " orally instructed " in the
way of the Lord, until he became perfect and was
able to teach others also. For when he came to
Ephesus, " being fervent in spirit," he could not keep
silence, but " repeated by rote^ and taught accurately
the facts concerning Jesus."
I once more adopt the Western reading, aTreXaXei,
but I have ventured to assign to it meo periculo a
new interpretation. The word is so rare that it is
only known to occur again in Lucian, NigrinuSy

sec. xxii., where the authorities explain it "to
chatter much." But this rendering does scant
APOLLOS 319
justice and is plainly unsuited to S.

to Lucian,
Luke. seems to me that as the ordinary sense,
It
" to forbid," found in a-rrayopevw and in aireiirovy is
out of the question, it is not impossible that in the
silver age airoKaXw may have been used for airo
(TTO/uLaTO? XaXu) or airo yKwacrr]^ XaXco, both of which
phrases signify "to repeat by rote." If "to speak
off the mouth "
speak off the tongue " were
and " to
English phrases to denote ex tempore discourse, to **
speak off" would be likely soon to acquire the same

meaning.
My interpretation, if true, will give new point to
the quotation from Lucian, who is describing the
miseries of parasites at their patron's dinner table,
and complains, amongst other things, that they are
called upon for recitations of passages unfit for
publication, to amuse the company. At the same
time, it is so admirably adapted to what S. Luke,
according to my view of the situation, wanted to say,
that I feel bound, for that very reason, not to press
it too strongly. It is something, however, to have
found a meaning which gives point to both passages,
and if only the rendering, " glibly recite," be con-
ceded, I shall be content.

Apollos had been baptized by John ought he to :
seek rebaptism ? His master had told him, " I

baptize with water . . . but the Messiah will
baptize with the gifts of the Holy Spirit.'' But
the Messiah's ministry was over. He had ascended
into the heavens. Apollos could not approach Him.
Was it necessary, or desirable, or indeed of any use,
to apply to one of His disciples ? The question, like
many questions which agitated the Church in the
first age, was a difficult one. Christ Himself had
been baptized by John, and in this had " fulfilled all
righteousness." What was enough for our Lord may

well have been thought enough for His servants.
The catechist, who had taught Apollos, had not been
sent to baptize. Like S. Paul, he preferred to keep
to his own department. I can well believe that even
evangelists were wont to keep the question of

baptism in the background, lest in their haste they
should introduce false brethren and informers into
the fold. Rebaptism is never popular. The Ana-
baptists were particularly hated. Roman Catholics
now on receiving a man insist only on conditional
rebaptism, or they would find great difficulties in
imposing it. For it is a slur on your original
baptism, a confession that your first teacher was
incapable. I can well believe that Apollos, knowing
the efficacy of John's baptism, and not yet having
experienced the superiority of Christian baptism,
deliberately decided to abide as he was. And if he
felt thus, what wonder if the other twelve men, who
were only laymen, should follow his example?
Neither Alexandria nor Ephesus had been visited
by an by the laying on of whose hands the
apostle,
gifts of the were bestowed. And, until he
Spirit
met Aquila, Apollos had seen no one who had
received those gifts.
Much difficulty has been introduced into the situa-

tion by the assumption that the case of these men
was exceptional. The truth I suspect to be that S.
Paul was exceedingly familiar with such cases.
APOLLOS 321
John's disciples were scattered everywhere over the

Roman Empire, and S. Paul, in the course of his
journeys, must have encountered them repeatedly.
Nor were the converts of the great day of Pentecost
less numerous or much more grounded in the faith.
They had received Christian baptism, and had
witnessed some of the gifts of the Spirit ; but they
had been imperfectly instructed, and their Christ-
ianity was defective in doctrine.
When S. Paul met Christians in Churches which
no apostle had visited, his desire was to " impart to
them some spiritual gift." (Rom. 1 1, etc.) To this
i.
end he asked, " Did you receive any spiritual gift

when you were made Christians?" This means,
" Have you ever come in contact with an apostle ?
Did he ever lay his hands upon you ? " The twelve
replied, " We did not even hear that gifts of the
Spirit were granted." By this they admit the possi-
bility of such gifts, for the saying of the Baptist had
taught them so much but they were not aware that
;
the gifts were already obtainable. They probably

expected to have to wait for them until they reached
the other world. S. Paul —no doubt after a good
deal of instruction —baptized them into the name of
the Lord Jesus, and then laid his hands upon them,
and their faith was confirmed by the possession at
last of these gifts.
There is something attractive in the picture of the
unity of early times, when the ordinary Jew, the
and the full-grown Christian
disciple of the Baptist,
could worship in the same synagogue, and felt no
call to excommunicate and curse one another. Let
Y
us remember was only possible because
that this
Christianity was very low ebb.
at a These
Christians believed that Jesus was the Christ, but
in nothing else did they, as a rule, differ from the
Jews. They insisted on the necessity of circumci-
sion. They upheld sacrifices as the only atonement.
They regarded the crucifixion as a stumbling-block.
They ignored it as far as possible, holding that it was
only a necessary prelude to the resurrection. They
did not preach Christ crucified. The sermons of
ApoUos differed very little from the sermons of
an ordinary Rabbi. The catechetical teaching of
ApoUos was accurate, but his doctrine was griev-
ously defective. Aquila, who had been trained
under S. Paul, felt its hollowness. S. Paul's activity
inevitably led to disruption.
We, in these days, may pray for unity and strive
for unity, but let us remember that unity may be
bought too dear. If we got by renouncing all
it
that is valuable in our creed, we should have

reason to regret that the old days of cursing have
passed away.
XXI.
THAT PROPHECY IS CONDITIONAL
WHEN the storm was at its height, S. Paul

had stood up as a prophet amongst the
shivering passengers, and inspired them with new
hope by proclaiming in the name of the Lord,
"There shall be no loss of life amongst you . . . .
for there stood by me this night an angel of God,

whose I am, and whom also I serve, saying, Fear not,
Paul thou must stand before Cssar and, lo, God
; :
hath granted thee all them that sail with thee.

Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer for I believe
:
God, that it shall be even as it was spoken unto

me. Howbeit we must be cast upon a certain
island." (Acts xxvii. 22-26.)
But now the wished-for island, whose name and
locality, be it observed, had not been revealed to the
apostle, is at hand. They have cast anchor upon its
shores, and are only waiting for daybreak to thrust the
ship aground and make their final venture. Mean-
while the selfish and cowardly Phoenician sailors,
taking advantage of the ignorance of the passengers
about naval tactics, proceed to lower into the sea the
solitary boat which the ship possesses, and which at
the beginning of the storm they had secured with so
much difficulty, pretending that they were going
to make the ship safer and steadier by extending
some anchors from the prow.
A more dastardly deed was never heard of. We
may thank God that in these days the British sailor
makes it a point of honour to be the last to leave the
sinking ship, not the first to make off with the boat
and secure his own safety.
Paul, however, had been shipwrecked before.
S.
He had acquired by experience some knowledge of
practical navigation. He saw that when you have
four anchors at the stern it was folly or madness
to stretch other anchors from the prow. He looked
through the lying pretext to the infamous design
which underlay it, and appealed to the arms of the
soldiers to stop the rascality of the sailors. *'
Except
these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved."
A period of intense anxiety and peril is a test of
character,and the apostle, during this fortnight of
storm, had been steadily rising in the estimation
of his fellows. The centurion accepts his advice
the soldiers cut the ropes, and let the boat fall into
the sea. At that stage it was probably impossible
to do anything to save it. And so the men who
possessed the requisite knowledge to handle the
ship were forcibly kept on board, and by their
advice and assistance the seventy-six* souls escaped
safe to land.
But now what are we to say of S. Paul's con-
sistency? Had he forgotten the promise of God?
Had he lost faith in his own prophecy? Did he
* See above, page 15&.
PROPHECY IS CONDITIONAL 325
believe that the reckless wickedness of a dozen

men would change the divine purpose towards the
remaining threescore ?
S. Paul, it may be, held a different theory of
prophecy from that which prevailed in heathen
lands, and is too often accepted in modern Christian
circles.
Let us look at a similar case in his own history.

He was journeying towards Jerusalem on that
very visit which led to his present imprisonment,
and very nearly terminated in his death.
At Csesarea, in the house of Philip the Evangelist,
he was met by a certain prophet of the name of
Agabus. This man took S. Paul's girdle, bound with
it his own hands and feet, in imitation of the symbol-
ism of the ancient prophets, and said, " Thus saith

the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind
the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver
him into the hands of the Gentiles."*
The Christians who heard these words had the
fullest belief in prophecy and in thepower of God,
but they did not therefore say, " This prediction must
be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled, whatever steps we
take to hinder it"
Such a view of prophecy is to be found in
Herodotus and the Greek tragedians, who learned
it from Persia and the oriental fatalists.
The Christians, having been trained on the Old

Testament, were better instructed, and looked upon
this prophecy as a kindly warning whereby the
disaster might be set aside. " Both we," writes S.
* Acts xxi. II.

Luke, "and they of that place besought him not
to go up to Jerusalem."
So then the biblical view of prophecy is that a
prediction is not necessarily a statement concerning
the future which must at all hazards be fulfilled.
On the contrary, a prediction of disaster is a hint, that

you may take the proper steps to avert the disaster,
a prediction of blessing is an encouragement, that
you may persevere in the right steps to secure it.
Repentance may turn aside the punishment wicked- ;
ness may forfeit the reward.

This is no unwarranted Jeremiah writes,
inference.
"At what instant I speak concerning a nation
shall
.... to pluck it up, and to break it down, and
to destroy it ; if that nation turn from their
. . .
evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do

unto them. And at what instant I shall speak
concerning a nation .... to build it and to plant
it; if it do evil in my sight .... I will repent of
the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."*
And in accordance with this principle, although
the prophets for more than a century had been
unanimous Judah, at the
in predicting captivity for
very hour before the siege began Jeremiah went
last
down to the house of the king with the promise that
if he would execute judgement and do righteousness
the city should be spared.

Look again at the prophecy of Jonah. He made
the proclamation, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall
be destroyed."t There was as definite a prediction as
could be desired, and upon it the whole book of
* Jeremiah xviii. 7-10. t Jonah iii. 6.
Jonah turns. But the forty days passed, and

Nineveh was not destroyed. The prophecy was not
fulfilled. Jonah was very angry, but not surprised.
On the contrary, it was what he had all along
expected. He was certain that he would never have
been sent if Jehovah had not a gracious purpose
towards the hated foreigner. " I knew that Thou art
a gracious God, and full of compassion, slow to anger,
and plenteous in mercy, and repentest Thee of the
evil."*
Hence, very needless difficulty has been felt about
our Lord's parable of the unmerciful servant, in
which the master of the house, after forgiving his
slave the debt of ten thousand talents, changed his
mind when that slave showed no pity towards his
fellow-slave, and cast him into prison until he should
repay the whole of the money.t
To one who remembers the biblical idea of
prophecy and divine promises this is perfectly
normal. The promise was conditional, and the
conditions not being fulfilled, the promise was with-
drawn.
The doctrine of God's repentance has been almost
forgotten in popular theology. Our notions of God's
sovereignty have driven it out of view. It seems so
much easier to regard God as absolutely unchange-
able, irresistible in might, working out His own
purposes in spite of the puny efforts of man, that we
end making Him a tyrant, implacable, unmerciful,
in
as far removed as possible from that Heavenly
Father which our Lord came to reveal.
* Jonah iv. 2. f Matthew xviii. 34.
S. Augustine was the first to emphasize this side
of the truth, which at one time became so exag-
gerated that everything upon earth, every incident in
our Hves, our deeds, yea, even our thoughts were
held to have been predestined from all eternity.
Yea, a certain definite number of privileged persons
had been elected to salvation. And no effort
of the individuals themselves, or of their friends
or fellow-Christians, could alter the numbers either
way ina single case."^ Missionary zeal was therefore
folly, and a dreary fatalism ate out the heart of
evangelistic endeavour.
This was but a one-sided exaggeration of the
truth. There is a sense in which God's electing love
is true. It is taught by S. Paul, and is recognised in
our Thirty-nine Articles. But we must not let it
destroy the other side of the question.

Granted that the conflicting truths are irrecon-
cilable by the human understanding. That was
to be expected, for God is beyond us, and above us.
He is infinite, eternal, past finding out, and not to be
measured by our puny thought.
It is therefore necessary when we think of Him
to acquiesce in much which we cannot understand.
It is easy to believe in the absolute freedom of
the human will ; it is easy to insist that everything is
fixed by fate and unalterable. It is difficult to com-

bine what is true in both systems, and be content to
wait for the solution of the mystery until we know
even as we are known.
* This perversion of truth culminated inthe Lambeth Articles,
which are truly blasphemous, A.D. 1595. They never possessed full
authority.
Meanwhile, let us hold fast to this doctrine of God's

repentance. The language in which it is expressed
may be only an adaptation to our human intelligence,
but it contains a great truth.It makes prayer a
reality, itopens a door of hope to the returning
penitent, it encourages us to work for the good
of mankind, it restores to us a loving Father, to
whom we can turn with confidence in our perplexities
and our sorrows, it opens the way for the Incarnation.
" God sent not His Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through Him might be

saved." *
When our Saviour stood before the High Priest on
His last trial the Levitical police blindfolded Him
and struck Him on the face, saying, " Prophesy unto
us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote Thee?"t That
is a good example of the vulgar idea of a prophet.
But, setting aside the question of our Lord's unique

nature, and not pretending to decide what He could
say and what He could not during the period of His
voluntary earthly humiliation, we must insist that the
prophets, as prophets, had no such power as these
police attributed to Him, and as the uneducated
mind is apt to attribute to every prophet. Prediction
was but rarely conceded them. They were preachers
of righteousness, not guides as to the future. And
when prediction was granted them it was not con-
cerned with trivial matters of no consequence, but
with the welfare of nations or of individual souls.
The prophets did not speak as soothsayers, but as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost and their ;
* John iii. 17. t Matthew xxvi. 68.

utterances were conditional, and not the declaration
of an unalterable fate.
Nothing is so destructive of faith as a false or one-

sided view of God. The Christian teacher must
always be anxious to vindicate God's character.
And while we insist most that the problem is
insoluble, we most earnestly protest against those
easy methods of solving it which end in degrading
the idea of God, and exaggerating or denying the
liberty of man.
God is supreme, and God has created man in His
own image. He seems to have willingly and
mysteriously given up some part of His own omni-
potence in acting thus, for He created a being
who could disobey Him and thwart His gracious
purposes. It rests with ourselves whether we will
do this. We maybecome like God by setting Him
always before us, by letting the thought of Him
rule our hearts, our affections, and our thoughts by ;
seeking in Christ for the true glorification of human

nature, by working in the power of the Spirit till
every thought is hallowed, every act sanctified.

XXII.
THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLE

TO THE HEBREWS
has been pointed out by one of our greatest

ITtheologians, who has recently been taken to his
rest (Dr. that if we would understand the
Hort),
difficultieswhich S. Paul had to encounter and the
helps which he received in his work, if we would
penetrate to the meaning of his Epistles and realise
the errors against which he is contending, we must
find out something about the religious condition of
those Jews in the Dispersion who in God's good
providence had prepared the way for his teaching,
but in most cases did all that they could to prevent
the Gentiles from going further upon it than their
prejudices and slowness of heart permitted them to
go themselves.
For example, it has now been held for a gener-
ation that the heresy which meets us in the Epistle
to the Colossians originated from the Essenes, And
a flood of light has seemed to be thrown upon the
extreme obscurity of that Epistle by this assumption.
So teaches Bishop Lightfoot in his work on Colossians.
There is, however, one objection which appears to
be fatal. The monastic communities which the
331
Essenes founded were most of them round the shores
of theDead Sea. A few were scattered over Judaea,
and perhaps in Galilee, but certainly not in Asia
Minor, much less in Europe. The Essenes did not
send missionaries abroad, and were too exclusive
and bigoted to influence perceptibly the thought of
distant countries. The Colossian heresy is probably
to be found in the ordinary beliefs of the Jews of
the Dispersion, who, as we know from the case of
Philo in Egypt, had often departed very far from the
teaching of the Pharisees in which S. Paul had been
trained.
Now it seems to me that in the Epistle to the
Hebrews we may find something of what is wanted.
That Epistle for a long time was but hesitatingly
admitted into the Canon, because it is anonymous,
and not even a tradition existed respecting its
authorship.
We may put the matter thus Of all the New
:
Testament authors S. Luke alone was capable of

writing it. S. Paul, who was rude in speech, could
not have produced its smoothly-written, rhetorical
periods. Of extra-canonical writers who have come
down to us S. Clement of Rome is the most probable.
But, as Origen says, who wrote the Epistle in very
truth God knoweth.
A less discerning age began to advocate the
Pauline authorship, which in the Western Church,
where the Epistle was generally read in a version, has
been extensively held. By this means its admission
into the Canon was made easier. We may be
thankful for the result, although we cannot admit
AUTHORSHIP OF THE HEBREWS 333
the cause. Luther pleaded for Apollos, a suggestion

which it is impossible to deal with, for Apollos to us
is little more than a name.
Internally the treatise contains very few and slight
indications of persons, or time, or place. We cannot
suppose that the superscription, "To Hebrews,"* is
original, and it would be quite easy to maintain that
the Epistle was written by a Gentile, and was
addressed exclusively to Gentiles, f only We should
have one more proof of what S. Paul and S. Luke
abundantly indicate, that the Gentile Christians of
the first days accepted the Old Testament, and
studied it and valued it as highly as they have done
ever since.
On the whole, however, it is perhaps more probable
that we have here the exhortation of a Jew to his
fellow-countrymen. And as he not only wrote in
Greek, but gives the clearest proof that Greek was

his mother tongue and the Septuagint his Bible, we
may be certain that he was a Jew of the Dispersion.
What I wish to point out is that there is reason
to believe that he had never paid a visit to Palestine
or seen the Temple and its services.
For, in the first place, how comes it that not even

once in the whole treatise is the Temple mentioned or
alluded to ? The argument turns on the high priest-
hood of Christ, a most valuable and stimulating idea,
* By "Hebrews" Aramaic-speaking Jews are intended. This

Epistle is in Greek, and is certainly addressed to Hellenists. The idea
that the Epistle was originally written in Hebrew cannot be upheld.
t The persons addressed are not so much warned against lapsing
back into Judaism as of giving up religion altogether, "forsaking the
assembling of themselves together" and " falling away."
which is not merely novel in itself, but is not even
hinted at in any of the other books of the New
Testament, although in was made
subsequent days it
much of, and has been used to explain the work of

Christ far more than the common conception that
He is the Messianic King or even the True Prophet.
The writer, therefore, deals with the holy place
and the holy of holies, with the altars, the high
priest, the priestsnone of them, however, does he
;
connect with the Temple, but always with the " Tent
of Meeting," the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
It has been suggested that he deliberately ignored
the Temple, regarding the building of it as a
retrograde movement, a mistake due to the decline
in spirituality which marked the period of David
and Solomon.
But this is not convincing. I cannot think that
the building of the Temple was a mistake, or
that the regal period was inferior to that of the
judges. Surely it was very far superior, and the
Temple was a real necessity. The nation could not
have done without it.
Now it would not have been easy for a resident in
Jerusalem, who was familiar with the imposing
structure of the Temple and with the solemnity of
its services, to have shut his eyes to it altogether when
he was writing on such a topic. But suppose that

our author had never seen it; suppose that his
acquaintance with Judaism was derived from hearing
the law read, as it was read at every service of the
synagogue and it becomes natural for him to think
;
in the language of the Pentateuch. He cannot

indeed have been wholly ignorant of the existence

of the Temple. Every Jew was proud of it, every
pious Jew paid taxes to support it, and every
Christian had heard how Christ visited it; but as
he derives his facts from the Pentateuch, his thoughts
turn more readily to that humbler edifice of which
the Pentateuch makes mention.
There are several other things which seem to me
to indicate a literary rather than a practical acquain-
tance with the Jewish ordinances.
First comes the extraordinary assertion that the
innermost sanctuary of the Tabernacle, the holy
of holies, contained the golden altar of incense.
*
(Heb. ix. 4.)
We know that the holy of holies in Herod's

Temple contained nothing at all, for the sacred
vessels which used to be stored there had been lost or
melted down in Babylon, and no attempt was made
to replace them. But anyone who had attended the
Temple and seen the priest enter twice
services,
every day to burn incense on the golden altar, could
never have forgotten that most impressive sight,
as S. Luke describes it in the first chapter of his
Gospel.
This writer knew perfectly well — for he insists
That dvixiar-fipiov means **a censer" here is rightly rejected by

Bishop Westcott in his commentary on the passage. The texts which
he produces (Exodus xxx. 6, xl. 5; Leviticus iv. 7, xvi. 12-18; and
especially i Kings vi. 22, " The altar which belonged to the sanctuary,"
i.e, the holy of holies), explain how the author of the Epistle may
have been misled he derived his knowledge from books but to my
if ;
mind it is clear that he believed the "holy of holies" to "hold" the

altar of incense in exactly the same sense in which it "held" the Ark
of the Covenant.
Z2>6 NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS
upon it — that the holy of holies could only be
entered once a year, and by the high priest alone.
He seems to have supposed that incense also was
burnt once a year only, instead of being the most
conspicuous feature of the daily ritual.
Again, he tells us, "And every priest indeed

standeth day by day ministering and offering often-
times the same sacrifices." (x. ii.) A man who only
read the Pentateuch might well believe that every
priest was on duty every day ; but we know that the
priests in the time of Christ were divided into
twenty-four courses, which served a week at a time,
only therefore twice in the year. We know that the
great mass of priests never offered sacrifice at all,
and that to all of them doing so was a comparatively

rare occurrence.
The writer makes no mention of the Levites, of
the musical services, or the chanting of the psalms.
These things, which impressed the visitor more than
anything, are not mentioned in the law.
And though it would be most unfair to conclude
from his silence that our author was not aware of
their existence, a Jew of the Dispersion, who only
read his Bible, would not be likely to think of
them.
In xiii. 10, which is confessedly difficult, I think
we have another example of want of personal
acquaintance with contemporary Jewish ritual.
The thesis of the Epistle is that Christ is the true

High Priest, the only Priest who satisfies our
aspirations.
In order to prove this, the writer deals with the
ceremonial of the great day of atonement, which fell
once a year.
Why did he fasten on that day ? Because it is the
only day on which the high priest was especially
ordered to officiate.
As a matter of fact, the high priest, if he valued
his sacerdotal office, took part in the services (we are
told) every Sabbath and festival. But in the evil
days of Sadduceeism, when the high priest was
a prince first, a prelate afterwards, the religious
duties were often disliked and ignored. And in any
case, one who only read the law would never gather
that it was usual for him to officiate oftener.
Now the law briefly directs that on the day of
atonement "the bullock of the sin-offering, and the
goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought
in to make atonement in the holy place, shall be
carried forth without the camp and they shall burn ;
in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their

dung." (Leviticus xvi. 27.)
—
These were burnt not as sacrifices ; the Hebrew
—
word is different"^ not on an altar, there was but
one altar for burnt sacrifice in our Lord's time, but as
refuse outside the camp. In the time of the Temple,
we are told, the place selected for the purpose was
that where the ashes of the altar were thrown.
But in earlier times the notion of one altar was
unknown. Elijah, Elisha, Samuel, and other leaders
of religion built or rebuilt altars on every hill and
under every green tree. It is, therefore, natural
* EJ^^S to consume with T'lPpH, to burn incense,
^1^, fire. fat,
etc., sacrificially.
Z
that our author should — perhaps truly — suppose,
as he certainly seems to me to do, that in primitive
times an altar of earth was built outside the camp
for burning these victims.
That he says, was very different from the
altar,
altar inside the camp. The latter was connected

with mirth and jollity. The worshipper came before
it to feast with Jehovah, to eat flesh and drink wine.
His family and friends came with him, portions were

sent to favoured persons, and the priests got their
share.
But the altar outside the camp had none of those
symbols of joy. No flesh was eaten, no cakes were
baked, no wine or oil was poured forth. All was
sadness and fasting and mourning, symbolical of
God's wrath against sin.
On this interpretation the whole passage becomes
coherent. "It is good," the context says, "that
the heart be established by grace, not by meats,
wherein they that occupied themselves were not
profited." The oldest form of sacrifice, that in
which the worshipper came to feast, and to invite
Jehovah to partake with him, was not satisfying.
The human heart which has once awoke to its
need demands something of a more serious nature.
Our altar —
the Christian altar —
is one at which
neither worshipper nor priest nor Levite was ever

permitted to eat or to make merry. The victims
offered upon it were entirely consumed. Not even
their skins became the perquisite of the priest
The carcases were carried, as if under a curse,
outside the holy precincts. No room was found
for them in the assembly of God's people. They

were taken outside to be wholly consumed by fire.
" Wherefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify
the people through His own blood, suffered without

the gate." The cross —
the true altar was not —
erected upon holy ground. Calvary was, as we
now know it to have been — though no other
ancient author gives us any clue to its locality
outside the walls of Jerusalem. And He, " who

became a curse endured thereon mysteriously
for us,"
the wrath of God, Himself the Victim and Himself
the Priest.
"Let us therefore," the writer continues, " go forth
unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach."
In the early days of Christianity thousands of
Jews had enrolled themselves under the banner
of the cross, because they could be Jews first,
Christians afterwards.
But now a different state of things existed. The
Jewish authorities had decisively pronounced against
Christianity. The Christian Jew had to consider
whether he valued Christ enough to endure excom-
munication for His sake. Was he willing to go
forth with Him outside the city, bearing His
reproach ?
Manybaptized Christians found that they could
not do so. They had not the burning faith, the
true insight of this most highly inspired man. They
looked at things temporal, and were attracted by
them. Their heart-strings were tied to the Temple
and its services. They had loved the altar from
their childhood, had felt its consolation, and were
satisfied with it. They could not believe that God
would break His covenant, destroy the city, burn
the Temple, and overthrow the altar. They were
proud of the walls of Zion. They were ready to
die in defence of Jerusalem. And so they had
their desire, and perished in the breaking of their
idol.
It was not every Jew that had so deep a sense

of sin, so strong a desire for holiness, as to be
dissatisfied with his religious opportunities. To
S. Peter the law was a " yoke which neither we
nor our fathers were able to bear." To S. Paul it
was "the schoolmaster to bring us to Christ," but
of itself it made him cry, "O wretched man that
I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?" To this writer it was weak and unprofit-
able, incapable of satisfying the longing of the soul.
But to less exalted natures it was perfectly sufficient.
You committed a sin, you offered the duly-appointed
sacrifice, Jehovah was appeased, and everything was
well for time and for eternity.

This writer goes far beyond even S. Paul in
spiritual discernment on this point. The law is " old
and decaying, ready to vanish away." "It is im-
possible that the blood of bulls and goats should
ever have taken away sin." They were but a
symbol, an earthly counterpart of the true heavenly
sacrifice. Christ, the eternal High Priest, has come,
and by the one offering of Himself, once for all, has
made the true, the only possible atonement.
INDEX
Abbott, Dr. E. A., 276. Assyrian inscriptions, 165.
Abnormal Memory, 291 f. Astronomical calculations, 182,
Acts of the Apostles, oral sections 223.

in, 288. Athanasius, S., 205.
— date of composition of, 287 f. Atonement, Day of, 337.
— of 183.
Pilate, Augustine, S., 153, 205, 257, 278,
Aeschylus quoted, 145. 328.
Agabus, 325.
Agape, 140, 309. Badham, Mr., Formation of the
Alexandria, 21, 99, 162, 260. Gospels, 243-256.
Alford, Dean, 290. — Indebtedness of S. Mark, 2^6-

Allegorizing, 1 13. 264.
Altar of burnt offering, 337. Baptismal formula, variations in
— incense, 335. the, 137, 321.
Ammonian sections, 38, $1. Barnabas, Epistle of, 199.
Anabaptists, 320. Barns, Rev. T., 99.

Ananias, S. Paul's rebuke of, 225. Bartimaeus, healing of, 238.
Annas, date of his influence, 182. Beaufort, Sir F., on drowning, 291.
Anointing of our Lord's feet, 51. Beautiful Gate of the Temple,

Anonymous sections of the Gos- 303-308.
pels, 105, 146. Bethany, the Anointing at, 51,
Apollos, 42, 52, 68, 309-322, 333. 241.

Apophthegms, disconnected, 54. — the unnamed village in Luke
Aquila and 309 ff. 320 ff.
Priscilla, ,
X. 38., 26.
Aramaic, the language spoken by -- same village as Bethphage?

our Lord, 34. 71.
— the language of the earliest Bethsaidas, were there two? 71.
oral teaching, 18. Bezse Codex, 263.

— idioms in Greek translations, Blass, Prof. F., 312.
234- Breaking of bread, 140, 142, 144,

— writing legible, 60. 181.
Assimilation of doublets, ix, 48, 1 1 1. Browne, H., 190.

Burgon, Dean, 134. Coleridge, S. T., 292.
Burton, Prof., 27. Conder, Captain, 76, 305.
Conditional prophecy, 323-330.
Cffisarea, S. Luke's residence at, Conflations, 40-55.
100. •— list of, in S. Luke, 50-55.
Caiaphas, 217, Confusion of tongues, 278.
— date of his power, 183. Contentment,a false translation, 4^
Calendar, the Jewish, 168, 183. Converts ill instructed, 321 f.
Call of SS. Peter, Andrew, James, Copernicus, 224.

and John, 50. Corinth, speaking with tongues at,
Camel and needle's eye, 125-133. 281,
Catechists, defence of their exist- Cornelius, conversion of, 77, 280.
ence, 67, 96. Court of the Gentiles, 306.
— Eastern and Western, 228. — men, 308.
— modify the tradition, ?, 58. — priests,
307.
— wrote our Gospels, 11, 98, — women, 307 f.
Catholic Epistles, order of, 207. Cramer's Catena, 278.

Census under Quirinius, i83 ff. Cross, Rev. J. A., 151, 276.
Centurio, Latin word in S. Mark, Crucifixion, date of, 147-194.
234, 264. Cyril, S., 278.
Cevennes, Little prophets of the,
292 ff. Dalmanutha, î.
Chagigah, 173. Daniel, prophecy of weeks, 150,
Charge to the Seventy, 51, 108. 193.
— Twelve, 21, 28, 51, 107. Dates in S. Luke's writings, 75.
Chazzan, 314. — from internal evidence, 106.
Cheyne, Prof., 279. — of the Crucifixion, 147-194.
Christ our High Priest, 333 f. Demons, on casting out, 45.
Chronology, defective, IS, 21, 33, Denials, S. Peter's, 235.
38, lOS, 273 f. Dinner hour, 155 f.
Chrysostom, S., 172, 205, 278. Divergences a proof of originality,

Church lessons fix the length of 123-
the Gospels, 12 ff. Divisions of time, 152.
Churches, Gospels attest the belief Documentary hypothesis, i, 59,
of, 117. 64, 91, loi, 102, 136,
Claromontanus Codex, 204. 230.
Cleansing of the Temple, 176. Doublets assimilated, ix, 48, ill.
Clement of Alexandria, 187, 201. — meaning of the term, x.

— of Rome, 199, 332.
Clementine Homilies, 67, 187. "Early," " Early hour," 153.
Cloak used as blanket, 112. Eclipse of the sun, 192 f.
INDEX 343
" Generation, this is an evil," 52.

Edersheim, Dr. A., 308.
Editions of S. Mark, three, I-io, God, reluctance to use His name,
42, 105, 117. 103.
Editorial Notes, 43, 58, 72, 179. Gnostics, 187.
Eleusinian mysteries, 135, 143. Godet, Prof., 152.

Ellicott, Bishop, 24, 289. Gospels for every Sunday, 13.
Ephesus, Church at, 309.
— limited in length, 14.
— S., Paul at, 309.

— read in Church, 13, 17, 55,
— the twelve disciples at, 42, 231.
310 fF.
— Greek oral version of, 62.
Ephphatha, 262.
— bound in a codex, 199 f.
Epiphanius, 183.
— order of, in a codex, 200 ff.
Greek syntax, 27, 262, 268.

Eschatological discourses, 21, 28,
54, 55.
Halcombe, Rev. J. J., strictures
Essenes, 331 f.
on modern criticism, 195-
Ethiopian Eunuch, 77.
242.
when instituted,
Eucharist,
141, 180.
first
— dissects and reconstructs S.
— in private houses, 309.

—
Luke, 195, 223.
in error about TertuUian,
— at Troas, 142.
— resemblance to Eleusinian
196 f.
— puts John's Gospel

S. first,
mysteries, 144.
208, 223.
Eucharistic language in John vi.,
— multiplies Peter's denials,
S.
141, 180.
235-
Eusebian canons, 38. duplicate speeches,
Harmonists'
Eusebius, 172, 183, 191, 273.
32, 33-
Excommunication, 117, 339. — tortuous explanations of, 24,
Exultation of our Lord, 52. 149, 178, 235.
38,
Heath, Mr. R., 292.
Farrar, Dean, 285.
Hebrews, Gospel according to the,
Fatalism, 325 ff.
273.
Feeding of the five thousand,
— Epistle to the, 331-340-
locality of, î.
Fulfilments of Scripture, 219.
— meaning of, 333.
Hellenists, 61.
Gadarene miracle of the swine, 239. Hermas, Shepherd of, 199.
Gardner, Prof. P., on the origin Herod the Great, 185.
of the Lord's Supper, 134-

— Agrippa L, 218.
146. Hesychius, 150.
High Priesthood of Christ, 333.
Gates of the Temple, 304 ff.
Gaulanitis, 72. Hilgenfeld, Prof., 256.

Hippolytus, 150. John, S., the sheep (gate), 222.
Holiness, degrees of, 306. — on S. Peter's martyrdom, 220.
Holy of holies, 334 ff. — first epistle of, 217 f.
Horace quoted, 89. Johns, Rev. C. H. W., 165.

Hort, Prof., i75, 33'- Jolley, Mr., The Synoptic probleni;
Hour, meaning of the word, 148. 2^3-256.
— of the crucifixion, 147-159. Jonah, 161, 163, 326.
Hours, two ways of reckoning? Joppa, 117.
149. Justin Martyr, 275 f.
Hyperbole, 125, 129, 187. Juvenal quoted, 305.
Identical passages, 30-39. Keim, Prof., 257.

Inclusive reckoning, 164. Kennett, Rev. R. H., 100.
Intercalated months, 13, 168. Kenosis, doctrine of, 33, 114, 130,
Inspiration, 34, 78, 215, 222, 238, 329-
242. Kepler, 224.
Interpretation, the gift of, 281,
299 ff. Lambeth Articles, 328.
Irenneus, 150, 185 f., 201, 207, Laodicea, Council of, 205.
" Late," '• Late hour," 153.
Jairus, 241. Law, the, a burden or a comfort ?
James the Apostle martyred, 1 1 7, 340.
218. Learning by heart, 94, 137.
James, S., the earliest Christian Leathes, Prof., 239.
writer, 209. Lecky, Mr. E. H., 291.
Jeremiah, 326. Lectionaries, 13, 206.
Jerome, S., 205. Lias, Rev. J. J., 289.
Jerusalem, 54. Lightfoot, HorcE Hebraica, 162,303.
— church of, 258. — Bishop, 205, 265, 273, 331.
John the Baptist, 310 ff. Lipsius, Dr., 183.
— preaching 40 of, ff. Liturgies, 137, 139.
— disciples of,
41, 311. 42, 52, Logia, meaning of, 16, 270 ff.
— the Presbyter, 269, 274. — contents 274. of,
John, teaching
S., oral of, 67. — Aramaic, 61.
17, 19,
— writes 221.
for foreigners, — borrow Marcan scraps, 18.
— corrects Mark'sS. 171 dates, f, — how they reached S. Luke, 7,
182. 19, 105.
— speeches not verbatim reports, — undated, 16, 18, 28, 49,
216. — differently arranged by SS.
— of Scripture, 220.
fulfilments Matthew and Luke, 19, 28,
— Jewish feasts in, 184, 191. 35-
INDEX 345
Lord's Supper, Origin of, 134-146. }

Mark, S., oral gospel a gradual
— when first instituted, 141, 180. growth, I, 317.
Lucian quoted, 318 f. — various editions of, 1,42, 105,
Luke, S., artist and historian, 25, 117, 214.
49. ^3, 74, 80.

— list of second edition sections, 4.
— knowledge of geography, 83. — contents of third edition, 8, 9,
— a Catechist, 63. 260.
— used Mark's oral Gospel,
S. — not acquainted with the /ogia,
27, 105.
2, 60, 253.
— sometimes discards Mark, S. — wrote for Gentiles, 258.
42, 65. — date of his Gospel, 313, 317.
— used the /oîa, 19, 28,
35, 49, — unchronological, 15, 39, 176,
65, 105. 188, 273.
— how he got the lo^'ta, 7,
41, 28, — misplaces cleansing of the
64. Temple, 1 76.
— narrative,
travel 23-29, 20, 77, — groundwork of SS. Matthew
93, 250. and Luke, 23, 27, 77.
— methods
literary 27,46. of, 20,
— SS. Matthew and Luke agree
— analysis of Gospel, his 23.
against him, 41 f., 46,
— proper names, 74-90. 59.
3,
— omissions, 64, 245, 261.

3, — agreements with John, S. 10.
— dates, 75, 185. — describes Jesus as Son of God,
— notes, 179.
editorial
119.
— meaning of preface, 68, 78, — testimony the Resurrection,
to
92, 231, 24s, 274. 115-124.
— two chapters, 235.
first — proper names 56-73. in,
— characteristicsof gospel, his — xvi.9-20 not genuine, 62,
214 f.
115 f., 233, 286, 317.
— limited information, 49, 78, whence to be supplied, 122,
104 f.
317.
Lumby, Prof., 307.
Marcion, 202.
Luther, M., 209, 333.
Marshall, Prof, 59, 64, 103.
Lycaonia, language of, 279.
Matthew, S., a theologian, 74.
Mark, S., connexion with SS. — peculiarities of, 214.
Peter and Paul, 5, 6, 281. — some parts abbreviated, 257.

— lived Cyprus, 260.
at — reluctance to use God's name,
— an 212.
annalist, 74, 103.
— a Catechist, 98. — Gospel a composite work, 38,
— picturesqueness of, 9. 99, 247, 274.
— priority of,
41, I, 59, 209, written at Alexandria? 21,
213, 226, 236, 264. 99, 162, 260.
Matthew, S. written for Hellenistic
, (2) Accounts for variations and
Jews, 257. resemblances, 91, 107, 135.
popular among Gentiles, (3) Accounts for omissions, 64,
213. 245.
— logia, how arranged, 21, 35. (4) Preserves the Evangelist's
— first two chapters, 235. good character, 230.
— contains second edition of S. (5) Does not postulate lost
Mark, 3. documents, i, 59, 102, 259.
Meals, hour of, 155. (6) Proper names in S. Mark,
Memory, abnormal, 291 f. 56 ff.
Memphilic version, 205. (7) — S. Luke, 74, 87 ff.
Meyer, Prof. 279, 287, 294.

, (8) Assimilation of doublets,
Ministry, length of our Lord's, 89, ix, 48, III.
185, 239. (9) Patristic quotations, loi.

Miseries of the lost, 54. — objections considered, 91.
Mixture, 41, 48. — value in apologetics, 103, 135.
Mnemonics, 66, 253. Order, variations in, 17, 22, 35,
Moretum quoted, 262. 254.
Moule, Ven. Archdeacon, 96. — according to subject matter, 65.
Muratorian fragment, 197, 201. locality, 67.
Mystical interpretation, 113. — essential in mnemonics, 66.

Origen, 205, 332.
Nain, widow's son of, 247.
Nasmyth hammer, 226, 241. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, a
Nazareth, 50. native of Asia Minor, 150.
Needle's eye, 127 ff.
— says that S. Mark was S.
New cloth and old garment, 230. Peter's translator, 5, 247,
Newton, Sir I., 224. 257.

Nicanor's gate, 307. — — did not write order, in 11,
Nisan or Abib, 168. 177, 231, 255.

77,
Nugent, Lord, quoted, 127. — that Matthew wrote the
S.
Numerals expressed in MSS. by logia in Hebrew, 16, 265-

letters, 156. 276.
— his "expositions," 17.
Oral teaching during forty years, Papyrus used for MSS., 199.
243. Parables, the seven, in Matt, xiii.,
— modern instances of, 94. 21, 28.
— learning by heart, 137. Paschal Lamb, 169, 173.
Oral hypothesis, arguments for : Passion, history of the, 2, 106.
(i) Gives freedom, i, 20, 56, Passover, 179.
138, 259 f. Patristic quotations, loi.
INDEX 347
Paul, S., order of his epistles, Prayer, 52.
207, 210. *'
Preparation," meaning of, 159.
— speech before the Sanhedrin, Pre-Pauline Christianity, 309-322.
—
225.
shipwreck, 333
— beliefs, 322, 339 f.
f.
Priests seldom officiated, 336.
— Acts of, 199.
" Primitive Gospel," 246 ft
— unpopularity of, 143.
Prodigal Son, 29, 247.
Pella, 248, J55.
Progressive revelation, 217.
Pentecost, speaking with tongues
Proper names in S. Mark, 56-74.
at, 283.
Peroean Ministry, 24.
— S. Luke, 74-90.
Prophecy conditional, 323-330.
Peter, S., his denials, 235.
"Prophesy, thou Christ," 329.
—
•
resides at Joppa, 117.
— speeches the Acts, 211.
in
Ptolemaic astronomy, 223.
— Herod murder, 218.

tries to
Purse, III.
— connexion with Mark, S. 5, 6,

Quartodecimans, 12, 172.
93, 244. 177,
— "Memoirs" Aramaic,
his in
Quirinius, census of, 187.
61, 98, 105.

defective in dates and Ramsay, Prof., 77,84, 151, l88fr.
proper names, 68. Rebaptism, 320.

— Gospel according to, 159, 198. Repentance, God's, 327.
— Revelation of, 199. Repetition of utterances improb-
Pharisees accuse our Lord of being able, 32, 33, 37, 49, 176.
in league with Satan, 46. Resch, Dr. A., 272.

— our Lord eats with, 53. Resurrection, an historical fact, 123,
— discourse at breakfast table of, — five accounts of, 1 23.

53- — S. Mark's testimony to, 115-
—r —
dinner table, 54. 124.
-^ woes against, 21, 28. Revelations, S. Paul's, 139.
Philip the evangelist, 325. Rich man and Lazarus, 29, X3I,
Philippi, S. Luke's home, 99, 105. 247.
Philo, 332. Robinson, ?toi J. A., lOO.
Phoenician sailors, 323 f.
Pilate, 217. Sabbath, 160.

— date of, 182. — synonym for festival? 166.
— Acts of, 183. Sacrifices, ancient idea of, 145,
Plato quoted, 130. 181, 338.
Plummer, Dr., 27. — favour the rich, 131.
Polycarp, 150, 172, 207. Sahidic version, 205.

Popularity of the early Christians, Salmon, Rev. Provost, 96.
117, 218. Salt, ceremony of eating, 144.
Samaritan, the Good, 52, 247. Tatian's Dia Tessaron, 38, 51, 108,
Sanday, Prof., 59, 68, 97, 175. 198, 202, 230, 250, 273.
Satan, our Lord's miracles attri- Temple, Beautiful Gate of, 303-
buted to, 46. 30S.
Schaff, Dr., 277. — not mentioned in the Epistle
Schleiermacher, 196. to the Hebrews, 333.
Scraps of S. Mark, 7. — not a retrogression, 333.
"Sell your cloak and buy a — Zerubbabel's, 185.
sword," 104-114. Tertullian, 196 £, 202, 224.
Semitic co-ordination of sentences, Theodoret, 109.
264. Theophilus, 68, 97.
Sermon on the Mount, 21, 28, 50. Theudas, 190.
Shakespeare quoted, 126. Thursday, day of crucifixion?
Shipwreck, S. Paul's, 323. 159 ff.
Shoes and staff forbidden ? 108 ff. Tiberius, 186.

Shushan, 305. Tongues, the gift of, 277-302.
Sign from heaven demanded, 48. — confusion of, 278.
Silvanus, 62, 281. Tradition, oral, 139.
Silver coins, 107 f. Translation never exact, 18.
Smith, Mr., of Jordanhill, 84. Travel-narrative, S. Luke's, 20,
— Prof. W. Robertson, 145. 23-29, 77, 93-
Son of Man, 234, 264. Trilogy of parables, 29.
Sou they quoted, 129. Troas, the Eucharist at, 142.
Spiritual gifts, 321. Tubingen critics, 259, 272.
Stanley, Dean, 284. Twelve, an address to the, 53.
Stanton, Prof., 62, dd, 103, 245. Twelve tribes, names of the, 237.
Stesichorus quoted, 256. Twidale, Rev. T., 95.
Sunday services, 13.
Synagogues used by Christians,
Unconscious cerebration, 107.
309.
Unchronological arrangement, 22,
Synoptists differ from S. John
50.
about the day of the cruci-
Unity may be bought too dear, 322.
fixion, 170 fT.
Unjust Steward, 29.
— misplace cleansing of the
Unleavened bread, eight days of,
Temple, 176.
161.
— are not chronological, 177.
Unmerciful servant, the, 327.
Syria, 99.
Ur-Marcus, i, 259 f.
Syrian versions, 204 f.

Ur-Matthaus, 259.
Syrophcenician woman, 240.
Talitha cumi, 262. Weiss, Prof. B., 245, 250.

INDEX 349
Westcott, Bishop, supporter of iêrdcraTe, 252.
oral tradition, 138. i^TjyTjais, 272.

— on reckoning of hours, 149. iîaTarai, 263.
— crucifixion on Thursday, 159. irepoyXibacrois, 286.
— length of our Lord's ministry, €(poôvvTO ydpf I.
186. Tipfxrjvevaey 266.

— abused by Halcombe, 195. dvfiLaTTipiov, 335.
Western order of Gospels, 204. 0i5pa, 305.

— readings, 312, 318. te/)6j/, 304, 307.
Woods, Rev. F. H., 66. KaOe^TJs, 232.
World, teaching respecting the, AfaX6s, 303.
219. KafiiXos, 127.
Wordsworth, Ch., Bishop, 278. KarrjxeTadai, 313, 3 1 6.

/car' 6j'ap, 252.
Year of the crucifixion, 182-194. KpdâTTos, 261.
KvpiaKuv Xoyioju ct^pto^ls, 267.
dydirr], 1 40. \byLov, 266, 270, 272.
dyios, 306. /XTjTTb}, 120.

dd($o$, 252. {lotpav ve/xeiv, 1 45.
dKovu, 314, 317. 1/065, 304, 306.
d/j.(f>id^€i, 31. vvxOri/xepoVf 163.
dfKpUvvvaiv , 31. 6i/'e, oi/'fa, 153.

dvayvQvai., 315. Trapd8o(TL$, 139.
dvaKpLais, 1 50. TrapaSoCvai, 139.
dvaroXrif 246. irapaXaêiv, 139.
dirayopevcj, 3 1 9. 9r/56s BT^^cratSai', 262.
dire\d\ei, 318. irput Trputa, 1 48, 153-
direiTrov, 319. tti/Xt;, 305.

direvavTi, 252. pd^doi, 109.
dirb y\i!}cr<Tr}$ \a\e7v, 319.

dirb ffrdfiaros \a\eiy, 319.
^ 157.
(Tvveypd\paTo, 16, 264.
airrdpKTjs, 43. cyverdlaro, 16, 264.

8iaêâiovfi€vos, 267. TotJ uiois TWJ' dvdpuTrojv, 264.
eKaTovrdpxv^, 234, 264. Xaipere, 25 1.

iv T(J3 \a\T](Tai, 27. ojpatos, 303.
PLYMOUTH
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON
PRINTERS
A CATALOGUE OF BOOKS
AND ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
METHUEN AND COMPANY
PUBLISHERS LONDON :
36 ESSEX STREET
W.C.
CONTENTS
POETRY, ....
FORTHCOMING BOOKS,
BELLES LETTRES, ANTHOLOGIES, ETC.

ILLUSTRATED AND GIFT BOOKS,
HISTORY,
BIOGRAPHY,
.
....
. . •
TRAVEL, ADVENTURE AND TOPOGRAPHY,

•
NAVAL AND MILITARY,

GENERAL LITERATURE,
PHILOSOPHY,
SCIENCE,
THEOLOGY,
FICTION,
BOOKS FOR BOYS AND GIRLS, .
THE PEACOCK LIBRARY,

UNIVKRSITY EXTENSION SERIES,
SOCIAL QUESTIONS OK TO-DAY
CLASSICAL TRANSLATIONS,
EDUCATIONAL BOOKS,
JULY 1901
July 1901.
Messrs. Methuen's
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Belles Lettres
STUDIES IN DANTE. By Paget Toynbee. CrownZvo. 6s.
Among the subjects dealt with are 'Dante's Latin Dictionary," 'Dante and the
Lancelot Romance,' Dante's references to Pythagoras, Dante's obligations to
Alfraganus, to Orosius, to Albertus Magnus Dante's theories as to the spots on the
;
moon, the seven examples of munificence in the Convivio, the Commentary of

Benvenutoda Imola on the Divina Commedia, etc., etc.
êtbuen's StanC)arD Xibrar^

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. By Thomas Carlyle.
Edited by C. R. L. Fletcher, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford.
TJiJ-ee Volumes. Croivn 8vo. 6s. each.
This edition is magnificently equipped with notes by a scholar who has given three
years to its preparation.
THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF OLIVER CROMWELL.

By Thomas Carlyle. With an Introduction by C. H. Firth,
M.A. and Notes and Appendices by Mrs. Lomas. Three Volumes.
,
ds. each.
This edition is brought up to the standard of modern scholarship by the addition of
numerous new letters of Cromwell, and by the correction of manj' errors which
recent research has discovered.
CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By Lord

Macaulay. Edited by F. C. Montague, M.A. Three Volumes.
Crown %vo. ds. each.
The only edition of this book completely annotated.
Xtttle rfiSio^rapbles
Fcap. Svo. Each Volume^ cloth^ 3^-. dd. ; leather, 45-. net.
Messrs. Methuen
are publishing a new series bearing the above title.
Each book contains the biography of a character famous in war, art,
literature or science, and is written by an acknowledged expert. The
books are charmingly produced and well illustrated. They form delightful
gift books.
THE LIFE OF JOHN HOWARD. By E. C. S. GiBSON, D.D.,
Vicar of Leeds. With 12 Illustrations.
Messrs. Methuen's Announcements 3
^be limorlfts of Sbatiespeare

General Editor, Edward Dowden, Litt. D.
Messrs. are publishing an Edition of Shakespeare in single
Methuen
Plays. Each play is edited with a full Introduction, Textual Notes, and
a Commentary at the foot of the page.
KING LEAR. Edited by W. J.
Craig. Deviy Zvo, 3>y. 6^.
ZTbe Xittle Xibrarg

'
The volumes are compact in size, printed on thin but good paper in clear tj'pe,
prettily and at the same time strongly bound, and altogether good to look upon
and handle.' Ojitiook.
Pott Zvo. Each Volume, cloth, \s. 6d. net; leather, 2s. 6d. net.
Messrs. Methuen are producing a series of small books under the

above title, containing some of the famous books in English and other
literatures, in the domains of fiction, poetry, and belles lettres. The
series contains several volumes of selections in prose and verse.
The books are edited with the most sympathetic and scholarly care.
Each one contains an Introduction vvliich gives (i) a short biography of
the author, (2) a critical estimate of the book. Where they are necessary,
added
short notes are at the foot of the page.
Each book has a portrait or frontispiece in photogravure, and the
volumes are produced with great care in a style uniform with that of
'
The Library of Devotion.'
CHRISTMAS BOOKS. By W. M. Thackeray. Edited by S.
GWYNN.
ESMOND. By W. M. Thackeray. Edited by S. Gwynn.
CHRISTMAS BOOKS. By Charles Dickens. Edited by
George Gissing.
THE EARLY POEMS OF ROBERT BROWNING. Edited

by W. H. Griffin.
OUR VILLAGE. By Miss Mitford. (First Series.) Edited
by E. V. Lucas.
THE COMPLEAT ANGLER. By Isaac Walton. Edited

by J. BucHAN.
THE ESSAYS OF ELIA; First and Second Series. By
Charles Lamb. Edited by E. V. Lucas.
STEPS TO THE TEMPLE, and other Poems. By Robert

Crashaw. Edited by Edward Hutton.
A SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY. By LAURENCE Sterne.
Edited by H. W. Paul.
4 Messrs. Methuen's Announcements
Illustrated Books and Books for

Children
THE ESSAYS OF ELIA. By Charles Lamb. With 70
Illustrations by A. Garth Jones, and an Introduction by E. V.
Lucas. Demy %vo. \os. 6d.
This is probably the most beautiful edition of Lamb's Essays that has ever been
published. The illustrations display the most remarkable sympathy, insight, and
skill, and the introduction is by a critic whose knowledge of Lamb is unrivalled.
THE VISIT TO LONDON. Described in verse by E. V.

Lucas, and in coloured pictures by F. D. Bedford. Small 4I0.
6s.
This charming book describes the introduction of a country child to the delights and
sights of London. It is the result of a well-known partnership between author and
artist.
A GALLANT QUAKER. By Mrs. Margaret H. Robertson.

Illustrated by'F. Buckland. Crown Svo. 6s.
ZDc Xittle Slue :fiSoo]fts for CbllDren,

Edited by E. V. Lucas.
Illustrated. Square Fcap, 8vo. 2s. 6d.
Messrs. Methuen have in preparation a series of children's books

under the above general title. The aim of the editor is to get entertaining
or exciting stories about normal children, the moral of which is implied
rather than expressed. The books will be reproduced in a somewhat
unusual form, which will have a certain charm of its own. The first three
volumes arranged are :
1. THE CASTAWAYS OF MEADOW BANK. By T. Cobb.

2. THE BEECHNUT BOOK. By Jacob Abbott. Edited by
E. V. Lucas.
3. THE AIR GUN : or, How the Mastermans and Dobson Major
nearly lost their Holidays. By T. Hilbert.
History
CROMWELL'S ARMY: A History of the English Soldier
during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth, and the Protectorate.
By C. H. Firth, M.A. Crown %vo. Js. 6d.
An elaborate study and description of Cromwell's army by which the victory of the
Parliament was secured. The 'New Model' is described in minute detail, and
the author, who is one of the most distinguished historians of the day, has made
great use of unpublished Mss.
a history of russia from peter the great

TO ALEXANDER II. By W. R. Morfill, Jesus College,
Oxford. Crown Svo. Js. 6d.
This history, by the most distinguished authority in England, is founded on a study
of original documents, and though necessarily brief, is the most comprehensive
narrative in existence. Considerable attention has been paid to the social and
literary development of the country, and the recent expansion of Russia in
Asia.
A HISTORY OF THE POLICE IN ENGLAND. By

Captain Melville Lee. Crown Svo. "js. 6d.
This highly interesting book is the first history of the police force from its first
beginning to its present development. Written as it is by an author of competent
historical and legal qualifications, it will be indispensable to every magistrate and
to all who are indirectly interested in the police force.
ECTHESIS CHRONICA. Edited by Professor Lambros.

Demy Svo. net. {Byzantine Texts.
A HISTORY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE: From its
Beginning to Tennyson. By L. Engel. Translated from the

German by J. H. Freese. Demy
Svo. Js. 6d.
This a very complete and convenient sketch of the evolution of our literature from
is
early days. The treatment is biographical as well as critical, and is rendered more
interesting by the quotation of characteristic passages from the chief authors.
A HISTORY OF THE BRITISH IN INDIA. By A. D.

Innes, M.A. With Maps and Plans. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
Biography
THE LIFE OF ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. By Graham
Balfour. Two Volumes. Demy Svo. 2$s. net.
This highly interesting biography has been entrusted by Mr. Stevenson's family to
his cousin, Mr. Balfour, and all available materials have been placed at his dis-
posal. The book is rich in unpublished mss. and letters, diaries of travel,
reminiscences of friends, and a valuable fragment of autobiography. It also con-
tains a complete bibliography of all Stevenson's work. This_ biography of one of
the most attractive and sympathetic personalities in English literature^ should
possess a most fascinating interest. The book will be uniform with The Edinburgh
Edition.
THE LIFE OF FRANCOIS DE FENELON. By VisCOUNT

St. Cyres. Demy Svo. los. 6d.
This biography has engaged the author for many years, and the book is not only the
study of an interesting personality, but an important contribution to the history of
the period
THE CONVERSATIONS OF JAMES NORTHCOTE, R.A.

With many
and JAMES WARD. Edited by Ernest Fletcher.
Portraits. Dejny Svo. los. 6d.
This highly interesting, racy, and stimulating book, contains hitherto unpublished
utterances of Northcote during a period of twenty-one years. There are
many
reminiscences of Sir Joshua Reynolds, much advice to young painters, and many
references to the great artists and great figures of the day.
Messrs. Methuen's Announcements
Travel, Adventure and Topography

HEAD-HUNTERS, BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN. By
A. C. Haddon, Sc.D., F.R.S. With many Illustrations and a
Map. De}}iy %vo. 1 5^-.
A narrative of adventure and exploration in Northern Borneo. It contains much

matter of the highest scientific interest.
A BOOK OF BRITTANY. By S. Baring Gould. With

numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Uniform in scope and size with Mr. Baring Gould's well-known books on Devon,
Cornwall, and Dartmoor.
General Literature
women and THEIR WORK. By the Hon. Mrs. Lyttelton.
Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
A discussion of the present position of women in view of the various occupations and
interestswhich are or may be open to them. There will be an introduction deal-
ing with the general question, followed by chapters on the family, the household,
philanthropic work, professions, recreation, and friendship.
ENGLISH VILLAGES. By P. H. Ditchfield, M.A., F.S.A.

Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
A popular and interesting account of the history of a typical village, and of village
general in England.
life in
SPORTING MEMORIES. By J. Otho Paget. Demy Zvo,

lis. 6d.
This volume of reminiscences by a well-known sportsman and Master of Hounds

deals chiefly with fox-hunting experiences.
Science
DRAGONS OF THE AIR. By H. G. Seeley, F.R.S.,
With many Illustrations. Crown Svo. 6s.
A popular history of the most remarkable flying animals which ever lived. Their
relations to mammals, birds, and reptiles, living and extinct, are shown by an
original series of illustrations. The scattered remains preserved in Europe and
the United States have been put together accurately to show the varied forms of
the animals. The book is a natural history of these extinct animals, which flew
by means of a single finger.
Messrs. Methuen's Announcements
Theology
REGNUM DEI. The Bampton Lectures of 1901. By A.
Robertson, D.D., Principal of King's College, London. Demy
Svo. I2s, 6d. net.
This book is an endeavour to ascertain the meaning of the Kingdom of God' in its
'
original prominence in the teaching of Christ. It reviews historically the main

interpretations of this central idea in the successive phases of Christian tradition and
life. Special attention is given to the sense in which St. Augustine identified
theChurch with the Kingdom of God. The later lectures follow out the alter-
native ideas of the Church, and of its relation to civil society which the Middle
Ages and more recent types of Christian thought have founded upon alternative
conceptions of the Kingdom of God.
A HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By G. W.

Wade. With Maps. Croxvn Svo. 6s.
This book presents a connected account of the Hebrew people during the period
covered by the Old Testament ; and has been drawn up from the Scripture records
in accordance with the methods of historical criticism. The text of the Bible has
been studied in the light thrown upon it by the best modern commentators ; but
the reasons for the conclusions stated are not left to be sought for in the com-
mentaries, but are discussed in the course of the narrative. Much attention has
been devoted to tracing the progress of religion amongst the Hebrews, and the
book, which is furnished with maps, is further adapted to the needs of theological
students by the addition of geographical notes, tables, and a full index.
THE AGAPE AND THE EUCHARIST. By J. F. Keating,

D. D. Crown Svo. S^. 6d.
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. A Revised Translation, with

an Introduction, by C. Bigg, D.D., Canon of Christ Church.
Crown Svo. 35-. 6d.
A new edition, carefully revised and set in large type, of Dr. Bigg's well-known
version.
©jforb Commentarfes
General Editor, Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College, Dean
Ireland's Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES : With Introduction and

Notes by R. B. Rackham, M.A. Demy Svo. los. 6d.
Zbc Cbutcbman'6 Xfbrarg

General Editor, J. H. BURN, B.D., Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of Aberdeen.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW SCHOLAR-
SHIP. By J. W. Peters, D.D. Crown Svo. 6s.
COMPARATIVE RELIGION. By J. A. MacCullock.

Crown Svo.
THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. By E. T. Green. Crown Svo.

A POPULAR INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTA-
MENT. Edited by A. M. Mackay. Crown Svo.
8 Messrs. Methuen's Announcements
Xlbc Cburcbman'0 Mblc
General Editor, J. H. BURN, B.D.
Messrs. Methuen are issuing a series of expositions upon most of the
books of the Bible. The volumes will be practical and devotional, and the
text of the authorised version is explained in sections, w^hich will correspond
as far as possible with the Church Lectionary.
ISAIAH. Edited by W. E. Barnes, D.D., Fellow of Queen's

College, Cambridge. Two Volumes. 2s. tiet each.
THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE

EPHESIANS. Edited by G. H. Whitaker. is. 6d. net.
^be Xibrar^ of '^z'ooXx^w

Pott Stjo, cloth ^ is. ; leather^ 2s. 6d. net.
'
This series is excellent.'— The Bishop of London,
'Very delightful.'— The Bishop of Bath and Wells.
'
Well worth the attention of the Clergy.' The Bishop of Lichfield.
'
The new " Library of Devotion " is excellent.' The Bishop of Peterborough.
'
Charming.' Record. '
Delightful.' Church Bells.
THE THOUGHTS OF PASCAL. Edited with an Introduction

and Notes by C. S. Jerram, M.A.
ON THE LOVE OF GOD. By St. Francis de Sales. Edited
by W. J. Knox- Little, M.A.
A MANUAL OF CONSOLATION FROM THE SAINTS
AND FATHERS. Edited by J. H. Burn, B.D.
THE SONG OF SONGS. Being Selections from St. Bernard.
Edited by B. Blaxland, M.A.
XeaC)er6 of IReUgion
Edited by H. C. BEECHING, M.A. With Portraits, Crown Stjo. 3s 6d.
A series of short biographies of the most prominent leaders of religious
life and thought of all ages and countries.
BISHOP BUTLER. By W. A. Spooner, M.A., Fellow of New
College, Oxford.
Educational Books
COMMERCIAL EDUCATION IN THEORY AND PRAC-
TICE. By E. E. Whitfield, M.A. Crown 8vo. 5^.
An introduction to Methuen's Commercial Series treating the question of Commercial

Education fully from both the point of view of the teacher and of the parent.
EASY GREEK EXERCISES. By C. G. Botting, M.A. Crown
SVO. 2S.
DEMOSTHENES : The Olynthiacs and Philippics. Translated

upon a new principle by Otho Holland. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d,
a south african arithmetic. by henry hill,

B.A., Assistant Master at Worcester School, Cape Colony. Crown
Svo. 3^. 6d.
This book has been specially written for use in South African schools.
JUNIOR EXAMINATION SERIES. Edited by

A. M. M. Stedman, M.A. Fcap. Svo. u.
French Examination Papers. By F. Jacob, B.A.
Latin Examination Papers. By C. G. Botting, M.A.
Algebra Examination Papers. By Austen S. Lester, M.A.
English Grammar Examination Papers. By W. William-
son, B.A.
Fiction
THE HISTORY OF SIR RICHARD CALMADY: A Romance.
By Lucas Malet, Author of '
The Wages of Sin.' Crown %vo. (>s.
This is thelong and elaborate book by Lucas Malet since The Wages of Sin.'
first '
It is a romance on realistic lines, and will certainly be one of the most important
novels of the last ten years.
This novel, the scene of which is laid in the moorland country of the northern
part of Hampshire, in London, and in Naples, opens in the year of grace 1842.
The action covers a period of about three and thirty years ; and deals with the
experiences and adventures of an English country gentleman of an essentially
—
normal type of character, subjected owing to somewhat distressing antecedent cir-
—
cumstances to very abnormal conditions of life. The book is frankly a romance ;
but it is also frankly a realistic and modern one.
THE SERIOUS WOOING: A Heart's History. By Mrs.

Craigie (John Oliver Hobbes), Author of Robert Orange.'
*
Crown Svo. 6s.

LIGHT FREIGHTS. By W. W. Jacobs, Author of 'Many
Cargoes.' Illustrated. Crown Svo. 3^. 6d.
A volume of stories by Mr. Jacobs uniform in character and appearance with '
Many
Cargoes.'
CLEMENTINA. ByA.E. W. Mason, Author of 'The Courtship

of Morrice Buckler,' 'Miranda of the Balcony,' etc. Illustrated.
Crown Svo 6s.
A spirited romance of the Jacobites somewhat after the manner of Morrice Buckler.' '
The Old Pretender is introduced as one of the chief characters.
A WOMAN ALONE. By Mrs. W. K. Clifford, Author of

*
Aunt Anne.' Crown Svo. y. 6d.
A volume of stories.
THE STRIKING HOURS. By Eden Phillpotts, Author of

Children of the Mist,' ' Sons of the Morning,' etc. Crown Svo. 6s.
*
The annals of a Devon village, containing much matter of humorous and pathetic
interest.
a2
10 Messrs. Methuen^s Announcements
FANCY FREE. By Eden Phillpotts, Author of Children of
the Mist. Illustrated.
' Crown Svo. 6s.
A humorous book. Uniform with The Human Boy.' '
TALES OF DUNSTABLE WEIR. By Gwendoline Keats

(Zack). Author of * Life is Life. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
A volume of stories after the style of '
Zack's' well-known first book '
Life is Life.'
WITH ESSEX IN IRELAND. By the Hon. Emily Law-

less. Cheaper Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
A cheaper edition of a book which won considerable popularity in a more expensive
form some years ago.
A NEW NOVEL. By Mrs. B. M. Croker. Crown Svo. 6s.
THE PROPHET OF BERKELEY SQUARE. By Robert

HiCHENS, Author of 'Flames,' 'Tongues of Conscience,' etc.
Crown Svo. 6s.
A new long novel.
THE ALIEN. By F. F. Montresor, Author of 'Into the

Highways and Hedges.' Crown Svo. 6s.
THE EMBARRASSING ORPHAN. By W. E. Norris.

Crown Svo. 6s.
ROYAL GEORGIE. By S. Baring Gould, Author of Mehalah.' '
With eight Illustrations by D. Murray Smith. Crown Svo. 6s.

FORTUNE'S DARLING. By Walter Raymond, Author
of '
Love and Quiet Life. ' Crown Svo. 6s.
THE MILLION. By Dorothea Gerard, Author of 'Lady

Baby.' Crown Svo. 6s.
FROM THE LAND OF THE SHAMROCK. By Jane

Barlow, Author of '
Irish Idylls.' Crown Svo. 6s.
THE WOOING OF SHEILA. By Grace Rhys. Crown Svo.

6s.
RICKERBY'S folly. By ToM Gallon, Author of Kiddy.'

'
Crown Svo. 6s.
A GREAT LADY. By Adeline Sergeant, Author of '

The
Story of a Penitent Soul.' Crown Svo. 6s.
MARY HAMILTON. By Lord Ernest Hamilton. Crown

Svo. 6s.
MASTER OF MEN. By E. Phillips Oppenheim. Crown

Svo. 6s.
BOTH SIDES OF THE VEIL. By Richard Marsh, Author

of 'The Seen and the Unseen.' Crown Svo. 6s.
Messrs. Methuen's Announcements ii
THE THIRTEEN EVENINGS. By GEORGE Bartram,

Author of * The People of Clopton.' Crown Svo. 6s.
THE SKIRTS OF HAPPY CHANCE. By H. B. Marriott

Watson. Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
A NEW NOVEL. By E. H. Cooper, Author of '

Mr. Blake of
Newmarket.' Crown
Svo. 6s.
This book, like most of Mr. Cooper's novels, is chiefly concerned with sport and
racing.
THE YEAR ONE A Page of the French Revolution. By J.

:
Bloundelle Burton, Author of The Clash of Arms.' Crown Svo.

'
6s.
A vivid story of theReign of Terror in France in 1792, when the year i of the
Republic calendar commenced.
THE DEVASTATORS. By Ada Cambridge, Author of ' Path

and Goal. ' C7'own Svo. 6s.
JOHN TOPP :, Pirate. By Weatherby Chesney. Crown

Svo. 6s.
A book of breathless adventure.
Ube IRopeltBt
Messrs. Methuen are issuing under the above general title a Monthly
Series of Novels by popular authors at the price of Sixpence. Each
Number is as long as the average Six Shilling Novel.
XXIII. THE HUMAN BOY. Eden Phillpotts.
IJuly.
XXIV. THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT
ANTONIO. Anthony Hope.
\_August.
XXV. BY STROKE OF SWORD. Andrew Balfour.

\September
/IDetbuen's Sijpenn^ Xtbrarp

A New Series of Copyright Books.
NEW VOLUMES
THE CONQUEST OF LONDON. Dorothea
Gerard. [July.
THE MUTABLE MANY. Robert Barr. [August.
A VOYAGE OF CONSOLATION. Sara J. Duncan.

[September.
THE WAR WITH THE BOERS A Sketch of the Boer War :
of 1 899-1901. With Maps and Plans. By H. Sidebotham.

(Double number, is.) [Ocioljer,
A CATALOGUE OF
Messrs. Methuen's
PUBLICATIONS
Poetry
Rudyaxd Kipling. BARRACK-ROOM H. Ibsen. BRAND. A Drama by
BALLADS. By Rudyard Kipling. Henrik Ibsen. Translated by
68/A Thousand. Crown 8vo. 6s. William Wilson. Third Edition.
Leather, ts. net. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
'Mr. Kipling's verse is strong, vivid, full
of character. . . Unmistakeable genius
.
A.D. Godley. LYRA FRIVOLA.
By
rings in every line.' Tivies.
'The ballads teem with imagination, they A. Godley, M.A. Fellow of
D. ,
palpitate with emotion. read them We Magdalen College, Oxford. Third

with laughter and tears ; the metres throb Edition. Pott 8vo. 2s. 6d.
in our pulses, the cunningly ordered '
Combines a pretty wit with remarkably
words tingle with life ; and if this be not neat versification. Every one will
. . .
poetry, what is ? '—Pall Mall Gazette. wish there was more of it.' Times.
Rudyard Kipling. THE SEVEN
SEAS. By Rudyard Kipling. A. D. Godley. VERSES TO ORDER.
^•jth Cr. 8vo. Buckram,
Thousand. By A. D. Godley. Crown Zvo.
gilt top. 6 J. Leather, 6s. net. 2.S. 6d. net.
'
The Empire has found a singer ; it is no
depreciation of the songs to say that J. G. Cordery. THE ODYSSEY OF
statesmen may have, one way or other, HOMER. A Translation by J. G.
to take account of them.' Manchester Cordery. Crown Zvo. 7s. 6d.
Guardian.
'Animated through and through with in-
dubitable genius.' Daily Telegraph. Herbert Trench. DEIRDRE WED:
and Other Poems. By Herbert
"Q." POEMS AND BALLADS. By Trench. Crown Zvo. $s.
"Q." Crown %vo. y. 6d.
"Q." GREEN BAYS: Verses and Edgar WaUace. WRIT IN BAR-
Parodies. By " Q. " Second Edition. RACKS. By Edgar Wallace,
Crown Zvo. 35. 6d. Crown Zvo. 35. 6d.
Belles Lettres, Anthologies, etc.

R. L. VAILIMA LET-
Stevenson. with an Introduction and Notes by
TERS. By Robert Louis Steven- George Wyndham, M.P. Dejny
son. With an Etched Portrait by Zvo. Buckram, gilt top. los. 6d.
William Strang. Third Edition. This edition contains the Venus,' Lucrece,'
' '
Crown Zvo. Buckram. 6s. and Sonnets, and is prefaced with an,
elaborate introduction of over 140 pp.
'A fascinating hook.' —Standard.
'Unique in Literature.' Daily Chronicle.
• We have no hesitation in describing Mr.
George Wyndham's introduction as a
masterly piece of criticism, and all who
G. Wyndbam. THE POEMS OF WIL- love our Elizabethan literature will find a
LIAM SHAKESPEARE. Edited very garden of delight in it. Spectator. '
Messrs. Methuen's Catalogue 13
Edward RtzGerald. THE RUBAI- G. W. Steevens. MONOLOGUES OF

YAT OF OMAR KHAYYAM. THE DEAD. By G. W. Steevens.
Translated by Edward FitzGer ald. Foolscap Svo. 3J, 6d.
With a Commentary by H. M. L. Magnus. A PRIMER OF WORDS-
Batson, and a Biography of Omar by WORTH. By Laurie Magnus.
E. D. Ross. 6s. Also an Edition Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
on large paper limited to 50 copies. '
A valuable contribution to Wordsworthian
'One of the most desirable of the many re- literature.' Literature.
prints of Omar." Glasgow Herald. Sterne. THE LIFE AND OPINIONS
W. E. Henley. ENGLISH LYRICS. OF TRISTRAM SHANDY. By
Selected and Edited by W. E. Lawrence Sterne. With an In-
Henley. Crown 8vo. Gilt top.
troduction by Charles Whibley,
y. 6d. and a Portrait. 2 vols. js.
'It is a body of choice and lovely poetry.' Congreve. THE COMEDIES OF

Birjtiingham Gazette. WILLIAM CONGREVE. With an
Introduction by G. S. Street, and
Henley and WMbley. A BOOK OF a Portrait. 2 vols. 7s.
ENGLISH PROSE. Collected by
W. E, Henley and Charles Morier. THE ADVENTURES OF
Whibley. Crown Svo. Buckram, HAJJI BABA OF ISPAHAN. By
gilt top. 6s. James Morier. With an Introduc-
tion by E. G. Browne, M.A. and a
H. C. Beaching. LYRA SACRA An :
Portrait. 2 vols. ys.
Anthology of Sacred Verse. Edited
by H, C. Beeching, M.A. Crown
Walton. THE LIVES OF DONNE,
Svo. Buckram. 6s.
WOTTON, HOOKER, HERBERT
and SANDERSON. By Izaak
*A charming selection, which maintains a Walton. With an Introduction by
lofty standard of excellence.' Times.
Vernon Blackburn, and a Por-
"Q." THE GOLDEN POMR A Pro- trait. 3J. 6d.
cession of English Lyrics. Arranged Johnson. THE LIVES OF THE
by A. T. QuiLLER CouCH. Crown ENGLISH POETS. By Samuel
Svo. Buckram. 6s. Johnson, LL.D. With an Intro-
W. B. Yeats. AN ANTHOLOGY OF duction by J. H. Millar, and a Por-
IRISH VERSE. Edited by W. B. trait. 3 vols. los. 6d.
Yeats. Revised and Enlarged Bums. THE POEMS OF ROBERT

Edition. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. BURNS. Edited by Andrew Lang
andW. A. Craigie. With Portrait.
W. M. Dixon. A PRIMER OF Secoftd Edition. Demy Svo, gilt top.
TENNYSON. By W. M. DixoN, 6s.
M.A. Cr. Svo. 2S. 6d. Langbridge. BALLADS OF THE
F.
'
Much sound and well-expressed criticism. BRAVE ; Poems of Chivalry, Enter-
The bibliography is a boon. '
Speaker.
Courage, and
prise, Constancy.
W. A Craigie. A PRIMER OF Edited by Rev. F. Langbridge.
BURNS. By W. A. Craigie. Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 3^. 6d.
Crown Svo. 2.s. 6d. School Edition. 2s. 6d.
'
A valuable addition to the literature of the 'The book is full of splendid things.'—
poet.' Times. I'Forld.
êtbuen'6 StanDarD Xtbrars

Gibbon. MEMOIRS OF MY LIFE An admirable edition of one of the most '
AND WRITINGS. By Edward interesting personal records of a literary

life. Its notes and its numerous appen-
Gibbon. Edited, with an Introduc-
dices are a repertory of almost all that
tion and Notes, by G. Birkbeck can be known about Gibbon.' Man-
Hill, LL.D. Crown Svo, 6s, Chester Guardian.
14 Messrs. Methuen's Catalogue
Gibbon. THE DECLINE AND Dante. LA COMMEDIA DI

FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. DANTE ALIGHIERI. The Italian
By Edward Gibbon. A New Edi- Text edited by Paget Toynbee,
tion, Edited with Notes, Appendices, M.A. De?ny8vo. Gilt top. 8s. 6d.
and Maps, by J. B. Bury, LL.D., Also Crown Svo. 6s.
Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. Tennyson. TH E EARLY POEMS OF
In Seven Volumes, Demy 8vo. Gilt ALFRED, LORD TENNYSON,
top. 8j. 6d. each. Also Cr. 8vo. 6j. Edited, with Notes and an Introduc-
each. tion by J. Churton Collins, M.A.
'
Atlast there is an adequate modern edition Crowfi Svo. 6s.
of Gibbon. The best edition the
. . .
An elaborate edition of the celebrated
nineteenth century could produce.' volume which was published in its
Manchester Guardian. final and definitive form in 1853. This
'
A great piece of editing.' Academy. edition contains a long Introduction and
copious Notes, textual and explanatory.
Gilbert White. THE NATURAL It also contains in an Appendix all
HISTORY OF SELBORNE. the Poems which Tennyson afterwards
By Gilbert White. Edited by L. C. omitted.
Mi ALL, F.R.S., assisted byW.Warde Jonathan Swift. THE JOURNAL
Fowler, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s. TO STELLA. By Jonathan
Swift. Edited by G. A. Aitken.
C. G. Crump. THE HISTORY OF Crown Svo. 6s.
THE LIFE OF THOMAS ELL-
WOOD. Edited by C. G. Crump, Chesterfield. THE LETTERS OF
M.A. Crown Bvo. 6s.
LORD CHESTERFIELD TO HIS
This edition is the only one which contains
SON. Edited, with an Introduction
the complete book as originally pub-
by C. Strachey, and Notes by A.
lished. It contains a long Introduction Calthrop. Two Volumes. Crown
and many Footnotes. Svo. 6s, each.
XTbe Morfts of Sba?;e5peare

General Editor, Edward Dowden, Litt.D.
Messrs. Methuen have in preparation an Edition of Shakespeare in
single Plays. Each play will be edited with a full Introduction, Textual
Notes, and a Commentary at the foot of the page.
The first volumes are :
HAMLET. Edited by Edward Edward Dowden, Litt.D. Demy

Dowden. Demy Svo. 35. 6d. Svo, 3 J. 6d.
'
Fully up to the level of recent scholarship,
'
No edition of Shakespeare is likely to prove
both English and German.' Academy. more attractive and satisfactory than this
one. It is beautifully printed and paged
and handsomely and simply bound.'
ROMEO AND JULIET. Edited by St. James's Gazette.
^be Bovels
of Cbarles Wxz^zwq
Each Volume, cloth 3^. net ; leather 45. 6d. net.
Crown Svo.
With Introductions by Mr. George Gissing, Notes by Mr. F. G. Kitton
and Topographical Illustrations.
THE PICKWICK PAPERS. With also historical. The volumes promise well
Illustrations by E. H. New. Two for the success of the edition.' Scotsman.
Volumes.
As pleasant a copy as any one could desire.
NICHOLAS NICKLEBY. With
The notes add much to the value of the Illustrations by R. J.
Williams,
edition, and Mr. New's illustrations are Two Volumes,
Messrs. Methuen's Catalogue IS
BLEAK HOUSE. With Illustrations With Illustrations by G. M. Brime-

by Beatrice Alcock. Two Volumes. LOW. Two Volumes.
OLIVER TWIST. With Illustrations
BARNABY RUDGE. With Illustra-
by G. H. New. tions by Beatrice Alcock. Two
THE OLD CURIOSITY SHOP. Volumes.
Xittle JBiograpbies
Fcap. Svo. Each volume, cloth, 35. dd.
THE LIFE OF DANTE ALIGHIERI. By Paget Toynbee. With 12
Illustrations.
'
This excellent little volume is a clear, compact, and convenient summary of the whole
subject.' Academy.
THE LIFE OF SAVONAROLA. By E. L. S. Horsburgh, M.A. With
Portraits and Illustrations.
ZTbe Xittle Xibrarg

With Introductions, Notes, and Photogravure Frontispieces.
Pott Svo. Each Volume, cloth \s. 6d. net, leather 2s. 6d. net.
* Altogether good to look upon, and to handle.' Outlook.
*
In printing, binding, lightness, etc., this is a perfect series.'—Pilot
*It is difficult to conceive more attractive volumes.'— .S"^. James's Gazette.
'Very delicious little hooVs.'—Literature.
'Delightful editions.' Record.
'
Exceedingly tastefully produced.'— Morning- Leader.
VANITY FAIR. By W. M. Thacke- THE PURGATORIO OF DANTE.
RAY. With an Introduction by S. •
Translated by H. F. Gary. Edited
GWYNN. Three Volumes. by Paget Toynbee, M.A.
THE PRINCESS. By Alfred, Lord JOHN HALIFAX, GENTLEMAN.
Tennyson. Edited by Elizabeth By Mrs. Craik. Edited by Annie
Wordsworth. Matheson. Two Volumes.
IN MEMORIAM. By Alfred, Lord A LITTLE BOOK OF SCOTTISH
VERSE. Arranged and edited by
Tennyson. Edited, with an Intro- T. F. Henderson.
duction and Notes, by H. C. Beech-
ING, M.A. A LITTLE BOOK OF ENGLISH
PROSE. Arranged and edited by
THE EARLY POEMS OF ALFRED, Mrs. P. A. Barnett.
LORD TENNYSON. Edited by J. SELECTIONS FROM WORDS-
C. Collins,M.A. WORTH. Edited by Nowell C.
MAUD. By Alfred, Lord Tenny- Smith, Fellow of New College,
son. Edited by Elizabeth Words- Oxford.
worth. SELECTIONS FROM WILLIAM
A LITTLE BOOK OF ENGLISH BLAKE. Edited by M. Perugini.
LYRICS. With Notes. PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. By Jane
EOTHEN. By A. W. Kinglake. Austen. Edited by E. V. Lucas.
With an Introduction and Notes. Two Volumes.
PENDENNIS. By W. M. Thacke-
CRANFORD. By Mrs. Gaskell. ray, Edited by S. Gwynn. Three
Edited by E, V. Lucas. Volu7nes.
THE INFERNO OF DANTE. Trans- LAVENGRO. By George Borrow.
lated by H. F.Gary. Edited by Edited by F. HiNDES Groome.
Paget Toynbee. Two Volumes.
l6 Messrs. Methuen's Catalogue
XLbc Xittle GulDes

PoU Svo, cloth 35-. ; leather^ 35'. dd. net.
OXFORD AND ITS COLLEGES. '

One most charming guide books.
of the
By Wells, M.A., Fellow and Both for the library and as a travelling
J.
Tutor of Wadham College. companion the book is equally choice
Illus-
and serviceable.' Academy.
trated by E. H, New. Fourth Edition.
'
An admirable and accurate little treatise,
SUSSEX. By F. G. Brabant, M.A.
Illustrated by E. H. New.
attractively illustrated. '
— World.
A charming little book as full of sound
'
;
CAMBRIDGE AND ITS COL- information as it is practical in concep-

LEGES. By A. Hamilton Thomp- tion.' A thcncpum.
son. Illustrated by E. H. New. 'Accurate, complete, and agreeably written.'
'
It isbrightly written and learned, and is
—
Literature.
just such a book as a cultured visitor WESTMINSTER ABBEY. ByG. E.
needs.' Scotsman. Troutbeck. Illustrated by F. D.
THE MALVERN COUNTRY. By Bedford.
B. C. A. WiNDLE, D.Sc, F.R.S. 'A delightful miniature hand-book.'
Illustrated by E. H. New. Glasgow Herald.
'
In comeliness, and perhaps in complete-
SHAKESPEARE'S COUNTRY. By ness, this work must take the first
B.C.A.Windle,F.R.S.,M.A. Illus- place. '
A
cademy.
trated byE. H. New. Second Edition.
'
A really first-rate guide-book.'
Literature.
Illustrated and Gift Books

Tennyson. THE EARLY POEMS Edmund Selous. TOMMY SMITH'S
OF ALFRED, LORD TENNY- ANIMALS. By Edmund Selous.
SON. Edited, with Notes and Illustrated by G. W, Ord. Fcap. Svo.
an Introduction by J. Churton 2.S. 6d.
Collins, M.A. With 10 Illustra- A little book designed to teach children
tions in Photogravure by W. E. F. respect and reverence for animals.
Britten. Demy Svo. 10s. 6d. '
A quaint, fascinating little book : a nur-
sery classic' AthencBum.
Gelett Burgess. GOOPS AND HOW
TO BE THEM. By Gelett S. Baring Gould. THE CROCK OF
Burgess. With numerous Illustra- GOLD. Fairy Stories told by S.
tions. Small ^to. 6s. Baring Gould, Crown Svo. 6s.
Gelett Burgess. THE LIVELY '

Twelve delightful fairy tales.'— PwwcA.
CITY OF LIGG. By Gelett M. L, Gwynn, A BIRTHDAY BOOK.
Burgess, With 53 Illustrations, Arranged and Edited by M. L.
8 of which are coloured. Small 410. Gwynn. Dcjny Svo. \is. 6d.
6s.
This_ is a birthday-book of exceptional
PMl May. THE PHIL MAY dignity, and the extracts have been
ALBUM. 4to. 6s. chosen with particular care.
'
There is a laugh in each drawing.' John Bunyan. THE PILGRIM'S
Standard. PROGRESS. By John Bunyan.
A. ULYSSES; OR, DE
H. Milne. H.
Edited, with an Introduction, by C.
ROUGEMONT OF TROY. De- Firth, M.A. With 39 Illustrations
scribed and depicted by A . H. Milne. by R. Anning Bell. Crown Svo. 6s.
Small quarto. 35. 6d. ' The best "Pilgrim's Progress.'"—
'Clever, droll, smart.' Guardian. Educational Times.
F. D. Bedford. NURSERY RHYMES. Bedford. Secotid Edition. Cr. Svo.

With many Coloured Pictures by F. Buckram, ds.
D. Bedford. Super Royal 8vo. 'A charming volume.' Guardian.
2S. bd.
S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OF
S. Baring Gould.
FAIRY TALES
A BOOK OF NURSERY SONGS AND
retold byS. Baring RHYMES. Baring
Edited by S.
Gould. With numerous Illustra- Gould, and Illustrated by the Bir-
tionsand Initial Letters by Arthur mingham Art School. Buckram, gilt
J. Gaskin. Second Edition. Cr. 8vo. top. Crowji Svo. 6s.
Bzickram. 6s.
H. C. A BOOK OF
Beeching.
S. Baring Gould. OLD ENGLISH CHRISTMAS VERSE. Edited by
FAIRY TALES. Collected and H. C. Beeching, M.A., and Illus-
edited by S. Baring Gould. With trated by Walter Crane. Cr. Svo,
Numerous Illustrations by F. D, gilt top. 3^. 6d.
History
Hinders Petrie. A HISTORY OF Hinders Petrie, SYRIA AND
EGYPT.from the Earliest Times EGYPT, FROM THE TELL EL
to the Present Day. Edited by AMARNA TABLETS. By W. M.
W. M. Flinders Petrie, D.C.L., Flinders Petrie, D.C.L., LL.D.
LL.D., Professor of Egyptology at Crown Svo. 2s. 6d.
U ni versity College. Fully Illustra ted. '
A marvellous record. The addition made
In Six Volumes^ Cr. Svo. 6s. each. to our knowledge is nothing short of
amazing.' Times.
Vol. I. Prehistoric Times to
XVlTH Dynasty. W. M. F. Hinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN TALES.
Petrie. Fourth Edition. Edited by W. M. Flinders Petrie.
Vol. II. The XVIIth and Illustrated by Tristram Ellis. In
XVIIIth Dynasties. W. M. Two Volumes.Cr. Svo. 3^. 6d. each.
Third Edition.
F. Petrie. '
Invaluable as a picture of life in Palestine
Vol. IV. The Egypt of the and Egypt.'— ZJaz'/y News.
Ptolemies. J. P. Mahaffy. Flinders Petrie. EGYPTIAN DECO-
Vol. V. Roman Egypt. J. G. RATIVE ART. By W. M. Flin-
Milne. ders Petrie. With 120 Illustrations.
Vol. VI. EGYPT IN THE Cr. Svo. 3J. 6d.
MIDDLE AGES. Stanley '
In these lectures he displays rare skill in
Lane-Poole. elucidating the development of decora-
tive art in Egypt.' Times.
•
A history written in the spirit of scientific
precision so worthily represented by Dr. C. W. Oman. A HISTORY OF THE
Petrie and his school cannot but pro-
mote sound and accurate study, and
ART OF WAR. Vol. 11. : The
supply a vacant place in the English Middle Ages, from the Fourth to the
literature of Egyptology.' Times. Fourteenth Century. By C. W.
Hinders Petrie. RELIGION AND Oman, M.A., Fellow of All Souls',
Oxford. Illustrated. Dcviy Svo. 21s.
CONSCIENCE IN ANCIENT
EGYPT. By W. M. Flinders '
The whole art of war in its historic evolu-
tion has never been treated on such an
Petrie, D. C. L. LL. D. , Fully Illus- ample and comprehensive scale, and we
trated. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. question if any recent contribution to
'
The lectures will afford a fund of valuable the exact history of the world has pos-
information for students of ancient sessed more enduring value.' Daily
ethics.'— Manchester Guardian. Chronicle.
A
i8 Messrs. Methuen's Catalogue
S. Baring Gould. THE TRAGEDY racy in detail, clear arrangement of facts,

OF THE C.^SARS. With nume- and a broad grasp of principles.'
Manchester Guardian.
rous Illustrations from Busts, Gems,
Cameos, etc. By S. Baring Gould. Albert Sorel. THE EASTERN
Fifth Edition, Royal 8vo. 15 J. QUESTION IN THE EIGH-
'A most splendid and fascinating book on a TEENTH CENTURY. By Albert
subject of undying interest. Tbe great Sorel. Translated by F. C. Bram-
feature of the book is the use the author WELL, M.A. Cr. 8vo. y. 6d.
has made of the existing portraits of
the Caesars and the admirable critical C. H. Grinling. A HISTORY OF
subtlety he has exhibited in dealing with
this line of research. It is brilliantly
THE GREAT NORTHERN RAIL-
written, and the illustrations are sup-
WAY, 1845-95. By C. H. Grin-
plied on a scale of profuse magnificence.' ling. With Illustrations. Demy Svo.
— Daily Chronicle. los. 6d.
F. W. Maitland. CANON LAW IN '

Mr. Grinling has done for a Railway what
Macaulay did for English History.'
ENGLAND. By F. W. Maitland, The Engineer.
LL.D., Downing Professor of the
Laws of England in the University Clement Stretton. A HISTORY OF
of Cambridge. Royal 82/0. js. 6d. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY. By
'Professor Maitland has put students of Clement Stretton. With numer-
English law under a fresh debt. These ous Illustrations. Demy Svo. \2s. 6d.
essays are landmarks in the study of the 'A fine record of railway development.'
history of Canon Law.' Times, Outlook.
John. Hackett. A HISTORY OF '
The volume is as exhaustive as it is com-
THE CHURCH OF CYPRUS. prehensive, and is made especially
attractive by its pictures.' Globe.
By John Hackett, M.A, With
Maps and Illustrations. Demy Svo. W. Sterry. ANNALS OF ETON
i^s. net. COLLEGE. By W. Sterry, M.A.
A work which brings together all that is With numerous Illustrations. Demy
known on the subject from the intro- Svo. js. 6d.
duction of Christianity to the commence-
ment of the British occupation. A '
A treasury of quaint and interesting read-
separate division deals with the local ing. Mr. Sterry has by his skill and
Latin Church during the period of the vivacity given these records new life.'
Western Supremacy. Academy.
E. L. Taunton. A HISTORY OF G.W.Fisher. ANNALS OF SHREWS-
THE JESUITS IN ENGLx\ND. BURY SCHOOL. By G. W.
By E. L. Taunton. With Illustra- Fisher, M.A. With numerous Illus-
tions. Demy Zvo. 21s. net. trations. Demy Svo. los. 6d.
'
A history of permanent value, which covers 'This careful, erudite book. '— iâzV^
ground never properly investigated Chronicle.
before, and is replete with the results of '
A book of which Old Salopians are sure
original research. A
most interesting to be proud.' Globe.
and careful book.' Literature.
'
A volume which will attract considerable J. Sargeaunt. ANNALS OF WEST-
attention.' A tlienaum. MINSTER SCHOOL. By J. Sar-
H. de B. Gibbins. INDUSTRY IN geaunt, M.A. With numerous
ENGLAND HISTORICAL OUT-
:
Illustrations. Demy Svo. 7J. td.
LINES. By H. DE B. Gibbins, A. Clark. THE COLLEGES OF

Litt.D., M.A. With 5 Maps. ,5^- OXFORD Their History and their
:
cond Edition. Demy Svo. los. 6d.

Traditions. Edited by A. Clark,
a E. A HISTORY OF
Egerton. M.A., Fellow of Lincoln College.
BRITISH COLONIAL POLICY. Svo. I2S. 6d.
By H. E. Egerton, M.A. Demy 'A work which will be appealed to for
Svo. I2S. 6d. many years as the standard book.'
^ It is a good book, distinguished by accu- Athenauni.
T. M. Taylor. A CONSTITUTIONAL Pass Students at the Universities. It
AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF contains copious Tables, etc.

'An original work written on an original
ROME. By T. M. Taylor, M.A., plan, and with uncommon freshness and
Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, vigour. '
Speaker.
Cambridge. Crown 8vo. ys. 6d.
'
We fully recognise the value of this care- 0. A SHORT HISTORY
Browning.
fully written work, and admire especially OF MEDIEVAL ITALY, A.D.
the fairness and sobriety of his judgment 1250-1530. By Oscar Browning.
and the human interest with which he Fellow and Tutor of King's College,
has inspired a subject which in some Cambridge, /n Two Volumes. Cr.
hands becomes a mere series of cold
Svo. 5J. each.
abstractions. It is a work that will be
stimulating to the student of Roman
histor J-.
'
A
thena-um,
Vol, l 1250-1409. — Guelphs and
Ghibellines.
J. WeUs. A SHORT HISTORY OF Vol. il 1409-1530. —The Age of
ROME. By J. Wells, M.A., the Condottieri.
Fellow and Tutor of Wadham Coll.
Oxford. Third Edition. With 3 O'Grady. THE STORY OF IRE-
Maps. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. LAND. By Standish O'Grady,
This book is intended for the Middle and Author of Finn and his Companions.
'
Upper Forms of Public Schools and for Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
:Ks3antlne Zcicts
Edited byJ. B. Bury, M.A., Litt.D.
ZACHARIAH OF MITYLENE. Leon Parmentier and M. Bidez.
Translated into English by F. J. Demy 8vc. \os, 6d. net.
Hamilton, D.D., and E. W.
Brooks. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d. net.
THE HISTORY OF PSELLUS
By C. Sathas. Demy 8vo. 15J.
EVAGRIUS. Edited by Professor net.
Biography
R. L. Stevenson. THE LETTERS gravure. Second Edition. 2 vols.
OF ROBERT LOUIS STEVEN- Royal 8vo. 32J. net.
SON TO HIS FAMILY AND '
This splendid y/oxV.'— World.
FRIENDS. Selected and Edited, '
Of such absorbing interest is it, of such
with Notes and Introductions, by completeness in scope and beauty.
Special tribute must be paid to the
Sidney CoLVlN. Fourth and Cheaper extraordinary completeness of the illus-
Edition. Crown 8vo. 12s. trations. Graphic.
'
Library Edition. Demy 8vo, 2

vols. 251. net. S. THE LIFE OF
Baring Gould.
'
Irresistible in their raciness, their variety,
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. By
their animation ... of extraordinary
S. Baring Gould. With over 450
fascination. A
delightful inheritance, Illustrations in the Text and 12
the truest record of a "richly com- Photogravure Plates. Large qtiarto.
pounded spirit" that the literature of Gilt top. 36J-.
our time has preserved.' Times.
'
The main feature of this gorgeous volume
J. G. MiUais. THE LIFE AND is itsgreat wealth of beautiful photo-
LETTERS OF SIR JOHN gravures and finely - executed wood
engravings, constituting a completa
EVERETT MILLAIS, President of pictorial chronicle of Napoleon I.'s
the Royal Academy. By his Son, personal history from the days of his early
J. G. MiLLAis. With 319 Illus- childhood at Ajaccio to the date of his
trations, of which 9 are in Photo- second interment.' Daily Telegraph.
W. A. Bettesworth. THE WALKERS Cavendish). By Robert Southey.

OF SOUTHGATE : Being the Chro- Edited, with an Introduction, by
nicles of a Cricketing Family. By David Hannay. Second Edition.
W. A. Bettesworth. Illustrated. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Detny %vo. js. 6d. 'A brave, inspiriting book.' Black and
'A most engaging contribution to cricket White.
literature ... a lasting joy.'
Fair.
Vanity W. Clark Russell. THE LIFE OF
G. S. Layard.THE LIFE OF MRS. ADMIRAL LORD COLLING-
LYNN LINTON. By G. S. Lay- WOOD. By W. Clark Russell.
.\RD. With Portraits. Demy 8vo. With Illustrations by F. Brangwyn.
I2S. 6d.
Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
'
Mrs. Lynn Linton is here presented to us
'
A book which we should like to see ia the
in all her moods. She lives in the book hands of every boy in the country.'
;
she is presented to us so that we really St. James's Gazette,

know her.' Literattiê. Morris Fuller. THE LIFE AND
'A thoroughly good book, very Interest- WRITINGS OF JOHN DAVEN-
ing,and at the same time in very good ANT, D.D. (1571-1641), Bishop of
taste.' Daily Graphic.
'
Mr. Layard may be congratulated on
Salisbury. By Morris Fuller,
having produced an honest and interest- B. D. Demy 8vo. los. 6d.
ing record of a notable woman,' J. M. Rigg. ST. ANSELM OF
A then(B2im. CANTERBURY: A Chapter in
Stanley Lane-Poole. THE LIFE OF THE History of Religion. By
SIR HARRY PARKES. By Stan- J. M. RiGG. Demy 8vo. js. 6d.
ley Lane-Poole. A New and F. W. Joyce. THE LIFE OF
Cheaper Editio7t. Crown 8vo. 6s. SIR FREDERICK GORE OUSE-
Helen C. Wetmore. THE LAST OF LEY. ByF.W. Joyce, M.A. 7s. 6d.
THE GREAT SCOUTS ('Buffalo
W. G. Collingwood. THE LIFE OF
Bill'). By his Sister, Helen C.
JOHN By W.
RUSKIN. G.
Wetmore. With Illustrations.
Collingwood, M.A, With Por-
Demy 8vo. 6s.
and Drawings by Mr.
'The stirring adventures of Buffalo Bill's
traits, 13
career are described vigorously and pic- Ruskin. Seco?id Edition. 2 vols.
turesquely, and with a directness that 8vo. 325. Cheap Edition. Crown
inspires the fullest confidence.' Gias- 8vo. 6s.
g<nv Herald.
•
A narrative of one of the most attractive
C. Waldstein. JOHN RUSKIN. By
figures in the public eye.' Daily Charles Waldstein, M.A. With
Chronicle. a Photogravure Portrait, Post8vo. 5^.
Constance Bache. BROTHER MUSI- A. M. F. Darmesteter, THE LIFE
CIANS. Reminiscences of Edward OF ERNEST RENAN. By
and Walter Bache. By Constance Madame Darmesteter. With
Bache. With Sixteen Illustrations. Second Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
Portrait.
Crown Zvo. 6s. net.
W. H. Hutton. THE LIFE OF SIR
P. H. Colomb. MEMOIRS OF AD- THOMAS MORE. Ey W. H.
MIRAL SIR A.COOPER KEY. Hutton, M.A. With Portraits.
By Admiral P. H. Colomb. With Second Edition. Cr. 8vo. 5J.
a Portrait. Demy 8vo. x6s. '
The book lays good claim to high rank
C. Cooper King. THE STORY OF among our biographies. It is excellently,
THE BRITISH ARMY. By Colonel even lovingly, written.' Scotsman.
Cooper King. Illustrated. Demy S. THE VICAR OF
Baring Gould.
8vo. js. 6d. MORWENSTOW: A Biography.
'
An authoritative and accurate story of By S, Baring Gould, M.A, A
England's military progress.' Daily new and Revised Edition. With
Mail.
Portrait. Crown 8vo. j^s. 6d.
R. Southey. ENGLISH SEAMEN A completely new edition of the well known
(Howard, Clifford, Hawkins, Drake, biography of R. S. Hawker.
Travel, Adventure and Topography

Sven Hedin. THROUGH ASIA. By yet been made to our knowledge of
SvEN Hedin, Gold Medallist of the Abyssinia. Manchester Guajdian.
'
Royal Geographical Society. With

'
A book which will rank among the very
best of African works. Daily Chronicle.
'
300 Illustrations from Sketches '

A repertory of information on every branch
and Photographs by the Author, of the subject.' Literature.
and Maps, 2 vols. Royal ^vo. zos.fiet.
Alex. Hosie. MANCHURIA. By
'One of the greatest books of the kind
Alexander Hosie. With Illustra-
issued during the century. It is im-
possible to give an adequate idea of the
tions and a Map. Demy Zvo. \os.
richness of the contents of this book, 6d. net.
nor of its abounding attractions as a story A complete account of this important pro-
of travel unsurpassed in geographical vince by the highest living authority on
and human interest. Much of it is a the subject.
revelation. Altogether the work is one 'This book is especially useful at the pre-
which in solidity, novelty, and interest sent moment when the future of the
must take a first rank among publica- country appears uncertain.' Times.
Times.
tions of its class.' E. A. FitzGerald. THE HIGHEST
F. H. Skrine and E. D. Ross. THE ANDES. By E. A. FitzGerald.
HEART OF ASIA. By F. H. With 2 Maps, 51 Illustrations, 13 of
Skrine and E. D. Ross. With which are in Photogravure, and a
Maps and many Illustrations by Panorama. Royal Svo, 30J. net.
Verestchagin. Large Crown 8w. Also a Small Edition on Hand-made
los. 6d. net. Paper, limited to 50 Copies, ^to,
'
This volume will form a landmark in our £5' S^-
knowledgeof Central Asia. Illumin- . . . '
The record of the first ascent of the highest
ating and convincing.' Times. mountain yet conquered by mortal man.
R. E. Peary. NORTHWARD OVER A volume which will continue to be the
book of travel on this region of
classic
THE GREAT ICE. By R.E.Peary, the Andes.' Daily Chronicle.
Gold Medallist of the Royal Geogra- F. W. Christian. THE CAROLINE
phical Society. With over 800 Illus-
ISLANDS. By F. W. Christian.
trations, -zvols. Royal ?,vo. 32J. net. With many Illustrations and Maps.
'
His book will take its place among the per- DemySvo. I2j. 6rf. net.
manent literature ofArctic exploration.' 'A real contribution to our knowledge of
— Times. the peoples and islands of Micronesia,
T. H. Holdicli. THE INDIAN BOR- as well as fascinating as a narrative of
DERLAND being a Personal Re-
: travels and adventure. Scotsman.'
cord of Twenty Years. By Sir T. H. H. H. Johnston. BRITISH CEN-

Holdich, K.C.I.E. Illustrated. Demy TRAL AFRICA. By Sir H. H.
Svo. ly. net. Johnston, K.C.B. With nearly
*
Probably the most important work on Two Hundred Illustrations, and Six
frontier topography that has lately been Maps. Second Edition. Crown ^to.
presented to the general public' Litera- iSs. net.
ture. '
A fascinating book, written with equal
'
Interesting and inspiriting from cover to
cover, it will assuredly take its placeas
skill —
and charm the work at once of a
literary artist and of a man of action
the classical on the history of the Indian who is singularly wise, brave, and ex-
frontier. '
Pilot. perienced. It abounds in admirable
'
A work that should long remain the sketches. '— Westminster Gazette.
standard authority.' Daily Chronicle.
L. Decle. THREE YEARS IN
A.B.Wylde. MODERN ABYSSINIA. SAVAGE AFRICA. By Lionel
By A. B. WvLDE. With a Map and Decle. With 100 Illustrations and
a Portrait. Demy Svo. i^s. net. 5 Maps. Second Edition. Demy Svo.
'The most valuable contribution that has JOS. 6d. net.
A. Hulme Beaman. TWENTY 'A most delightful guide, companion, and

YEARS IN THE NEAR EAST. instructor.' Scotsjuan.
By A. Hulme Beaman, Demy '
Informed with close personal knowledge.'
8vo.With Portrait, los. 6d.
— Saturday Review.
Henri of Orleans. FROM TONKIN S. Baring Gould. THE BOOK OF

TO INDIA. By Prince H?:nri of
THE WEST. By S. Baring
Gould. With numerous Illustra-
Orleans. Translated by Hamley tions. Two volumes. Vol. l. Devon.
Bent, M.A. With loo Illustrations Second Edition. Vol. II. Cornwall.
and a Map. Cr. ^to, gilt top. 25s. Crown Svo. 6s. each.
Chester Holcombe. THE REAL '
Bracing as the air of Dartmoor, the legend
CHINESE QUESTION. By Ches- weird as twilight over Dozmare Pool,
ter Holcombe. Crown Sz-o.
they give us a very good idea of th'ir,
6j.
enchanting and beautiful district.'
'
an imporLant addition to the materials
It is
before the public for forming an opinion
Guardian.
on a most diflicult and pressing pro- S. Baring Gould. A BOOK OI"
blem.' Times.— BRITTANY. ByS. Baring Gould.
'It is this practical "note" in the book, With numerous Illustrations. Croiun
coupled with the fairness, moderation, Svo. 6s.
and_ sincerity of the author, that gives
Uniform scope and size with Mr. Baring
in
it, in our opinion, the highest place
Gould's well-known books on Devon,
among books published in recent years Cornwall, and Dartmoor.
on the Chinese question.' Manchester
Guardian. S. Baring Gould. THE DESERTS
J.W.Robertson-Scott. THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN FRANCE. By
OF CHINA. By J. W. Robertson- S. Baring Gould. 2 vols. Demy
Scott. With a Map. Crowfi Svo. Svo. 32J.
3s. 6d. ^
J. F. Fraser. ROUND THE WORLD
'A vivid impression . . . This excellent, ON A WHEEL. By John Foster
brightly written epitome.' Daily IVeivs. Eraser. With 100 Illustrations.
'Excellently well done. . . Enthralling.' Crown Svo,
— Weekly Dispatch.
.
6s.
'
A classic of cycling, graphic and witty.'
S. L. Hinde. THE FALL OF THE Yorkshire Post.
CONGO ARABS. By S. L. Hinde. R. L. Jefferson. A NEW RIDE TO
With Plans, etc. Demy 8w. 12.5. 6d. KHIVA. By R. L. Jefferson.
A. St. H. Gibbons. EXPLORATION Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
AND HUNTING IN CENTRAL J. K. Trotter. THE NIGER

AFRICA. By Major A. St. H. SOURCES. By Colonel J. K.
Gibbons. With full-page Illustra- Trotter, R.A. With a Map and
tions by C. Whymper, and Maps. Illustrations. Crown Svo. y.
Demy Svo. ic^s.
W. Crooke. THE
NORTH-
A. H. Norway. NAPLES: PAST WESTERN PROVINCES OF
AND PRESENT. By A. H. Nor- INDIA : Their Ethnology and
way, Author of Highways and '
Administration. By W. Crooke.
Byways in Devon and Cornwall. With Maps and Illustrations. Demy
With 40 Illustrations by A. G. Svo. los. 6d.
Ferard. Croiun Svo. 6s. THE BENIN
In this book Mr. Norway gives not only a
A. Boisragon. MAS-
highly interesting description of modern
SACRE. By Captain Boisragon.
Naples, but a historical account of its Second Edition. Cr. Svo. y. 6d.
antiquities and traditions.
H. S. Cowper. THE HILL OF THE
S. Baring Gould. DARTMOOR A : GRACES OR, the Great Stone
:
Descriptive and Historical Sketch. Temples of Tripoli. By H. S.

By Baring Gould. With Plans
S. Cowper, F.S.A. With Maps, Plans,
and Numerous Illustrations. Crozvn and 75 Illustrations. Demy Svo.
Svo. 6s. los. 6d.
W. B. Worsfold. SOUTH AFRICA. Thomas R.Macquoid, R.I, With

By W. B. Worsfold, M.A. With 2 maps. Crown Zvo. is.
a Map. Second Edition. Cr. 8vo. 6s. '
A useful little guide, judiciously supplied
'A monumental work compressed into a

with 'miorm3.X.\on.'—AthencBum.
very moderate compass.' World. A. H. Keane. THE BOER STATES
A History and Description of the
Katherine and Gilbert Macquoid. I N Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
PARIS. By Katherine and Gil- By A. H. Keane, M.A. With
bert Macquoid. Illustrated by Map. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Naval and Military

F. H. E. Cunliffe. THE HISTORY son. With 16 Illustrations and a
OF THE BOER WAR. By F. H. Plan. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
E. Cunliffe, Fellow of All Souls'
With many Illus-
Barclay Lloyd. A THOUSAND
College, Oxford. MILES WITH THE C.I.V. By
trations, Plans, and Portraits, In 2 Captain Barclay Lloyd. With
vols. Vol. I., 1 5 J. an Introduction by Colonel Mac-
'
The excellence of the work is double ; for Kinnon, and a Portrait and Map.
the narrative is vivid and temperate, and Crown 8vo. 6s.
the illustrations form a picture gallery
of the war which is not likely to be Filson Young-. THE RELIEF OF
rivalled. ... An ideal gift book.' MAFEKING. By Filson Young.
Acadenty. With Maps and Crown
Illustrations.
G, S. Robertson. CHITRAL: The 8vo. 6s.
Story of a Minor Siege, By Sir J. Angus Hamilton. THE SIEGE
G, S. Robertson, K. C.S.I. With OF MAFEKING. By J. Angus
numerousIllustrations,Mapand Plans. Hamilton. With many Illustra-
Second Editiofi. Demy 8vo. xos. 6d. tions.Crown 8vo. 6s.
'
A book which the Elizabethans would have '
A thrilling story.' Ohset-i>er.
thought wonderful. More thrilling, more
piquant, and more human than any
H. F. Prevost Battersby IN THE
novel.'Ncivcastle Chronicle. WEB OF A WAR. By H. F.
'As fascinating as Sir Walter Scott's best Prevost Battersby. With Plans,
fiction.' Daily Telegraph. and Portrait of the Author. Crown
8vo.
R. S. S. Baden-PoweU. THE DOWN- '
The
6s.
pathos, the comedy, the majesty of
FALL OF PREMPEH. A Diary of war are all in these pages.' Daily
Life in Ashanti, 1895. By Maj.-Gen. Mail.
Baden-Powell. With 21 Illustra-
Howard C. Hillegas. WITH THE
tions and a Map. Third Edition.
BOER FORCES. By Howard C.
Large Crown 8vo. 6s.
Hillegas. With 24 Illustrations.
R. S. S. Baden-Powell. THEMATA- Second Editioji. Crown 8vo. 6s.
BELE CAMPAIGN, 1896. By Maj.- 'A most interesting book. It has many
Gen. Baden-Powell. With nearly and great Athenceuni.

merits.'
'
Has extreme and scarcely less
interest
100 Illustrations. Fourth and Cheaper value.' Pall Mall Gazette.
Edition. Large Crown 8vo. 6s.
H. C. J. Biss. THE RELIEF OF
J. B. Atkins. THE RELIEF OF KUMASI. By Captain H. C. J.
LADYSMITH. By John Black Biss. With Maps and Illustrations.
Atkins. With 16 Plans and Illus- Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
trations. Third Edition. Crown '
Pleasantly written and highly interesting.
8vo. 6s. The illustrations are admirable.' (2uecn.
'
We should say it will remain the standard
H. W. Nevinson. LADYSMITH The :
work on its very interesting subject.'
Diary of a Siege. By H. W. Nevin- Glol>e.
E. H. Alderson. WITH THE W. Kinnaird Rose. With Illus-

MOUNTED INFANTRY AND trations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE MASHONALAND FIELD G. W. Steevens. NAVAL POLICY :
FORCE, 1896. By Lieut. -Colonel By G. W. Steevens. Demy Zvo. 6s.

Alderson, With numerous Illus-
trations and Plans. Dony Zvo. D. Hannay. A SHORT HISTORY
OF THE ROYAL NAVY, From
I
\os. 6d.
Early Times to the Present Day.
Seymour Vandeleur,CAMPAIGN- !
By David Hannay. Illustrated.
ING ON THE UPPER NILE I
2 Vols. Demy Bvo. js. 6d. each.

AND NIGER. By Lieut. Seymour Vol. I., 1200-1688.
Vandeleur. With an Introduction *
We read it from cover to cover at a sitting,
by Sir G. Goldie, K.C.M.G. With and those who go to it for a lively and
4 Maps, Illustrations, and Plans. brisk picture of the past, with all its faults
Large Crown 8vo. los. 6d.
and its grandeur, will not be disappointed.
The historian is endowed with literary
Lord Fincastle. A FRONTIER skill and style.' Standard.
CAMPAIGN. By Viscount Fin- E. L. S. Horsburgh. WATERLOO : A
castle, V.C., and Lieut. P. C. Narrative and Criticism. By E. L. S.
Elliott-Lockhart. With a Map Horsburgh, M. a. With Plans.
and 16 Illustrations. Second Edition. Crown 8vo.
Second Edition. ^s.
Crown Zvo. 6s. 'A brilliant essay —simple, sound, and
thorough.' Daily Chronicle.
E. N. Bennett. THE DOWNFALL H. B. George. BATTLES OF
OF THE DERVISHES A : Sketch ENGLISH HISTORY. By H. B.
of the Sudan Campaign of 1898. By George, M.A., Fellow of New
E. N. Bennett, Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford. With numerous
College. With a Photogravure Por- Plans. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
trait of Lord Kitchener. Third '
Mr. George has undertaken a very useful
Edition. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. —
task that of making military affairs in-
and instructive to non-military
telligible
W. Kinnaird Rose. WITH THE —
readers and has executed it with a
GREEKS IN THESSALY. By large measure of success.' Times.
General Literature
S. Baring Gould. OLD COUNTRY S. Baring Gould. HISTORIC
LIFE. ByS. Baring Gould. With ODDITIES AND STRANGE
Sixty-seven Illustrations. Large Cr. EVENTS. By S. Baring Gould.
Zvo. Fifth Edition. 6s. Fifth Edition. Crown Zvo. 6s.
*
'
Old Country Life, " as healthy wholesome
'
S. Baring Gould. FREAKS OF
reading, full of breezy life and move-
ment, full of quaint stories vigorously
FANATICISM. By S. Baring
told, will not be excelled by any book to Gould. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s.
be published throughout the year.
Sound, hearty, and English to the core.'
S. A GARLAND OF
Baring Gould.
—
World.
COUNTRY SONG Enghsh Folk :
Songs with their Traditional Melodies.

S. Baring Gould. AN OLD ENGLISH Collected and arranged by S. Baring
HOME. By S. Baring Gould. Gould and H. F. Sheppard.
With numerous Plans and Illustra- Demy îo. 6s.
tions. Crown Zvo. 6s.
'The chapters are delightfully fresh, very
S. Baring Gould. SONGS OF THE
informing, and lightened by many a good WEST: Traditional Ballads and
Story. Adelightful fireside companion.' Songs of the West of England, with
— .S"^. James's Gazette. their Melodies. Collected by S.
Baring Gould, M.A.. and H. F. it deserves the attention of every patriotic

Sheppard, M.A. In 4 Parts. Parts Englishman." Daily Mail.
I. II. III. 3s. Part I V.
each.
'A notable book.' Literature.
, ,
, 5^.
,
'A book of sound work, deep thought, and
In one Vol., French morocco, \z^s. a sincere endeavour to rouse the British
' A rich collection of humour, pathos, grace, to a knowledge of the value of their
and poetic fancy.' Saturday Review. Empire.' Bookman.
'
A more vigorous work has not been written
S. Baring Gould. YORKSHIRE for many years.' Review of the Week.
ODDITIES AND STRANGE
EVENTS. By S. Baring Gould.
A. Silva White. THE EXPANSION
Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. OF EGYPT: A Political and His-
torical Survey. By A. SiLVA White.
S. Baring Gould. STRANGE SUR- With four Special Maps. Demy Zvo.
VIVALS AND SUPERSTITIONS. I
1 55. net.
By S. Baring Gould. Cr. 8vo. '
This emphatically the best account of
is
Second Edition. 6s. Egypt as it is under English control that
has been published for many years.'—
Marie Corelli. THE PASSING OF Spectator.
THE GREAT QUEEN A Tribute
Noble Life of Victoria Regina.
to the
:
Chas. Richardson. THE ENGLISH

By Marie Corelli. Smalt ^to. is. TURF. By Charles Richardson.
With numerous Illustrations and
Cotton Minchin. OLD HARROW Plans, Demy Zvo. x^s.
DAYS. By J. G. Cotton Minchin. 'As a record of horses and courses, this
Cr. Zvo. Second Edition. 5^. work is a valuable addition to the litera-
ture of the Turf. It is crammed with
W. E. Gladstone. THE SPEECHES sound information, and with reflections
OF THE RT. HON. W. E. GLAD- and suggestions that are born of a
STONE, M.P. Edited by A. W. thorough knowledge of the subject.'
Hutton, M.A., and H.J. Cohen, Scotsnia7i.
M.A. With Portraits. Demy Zvo. '
A book which is sure to find many readers
Vols. IX. and X., X2S. 6d. each.
written with consummate knowledge •
and in an easy, agreeable style.' Daily

M. N. Oxford. A HANDBOOK OF Chronicle.
NURSING. By M. N. Oxford, of '
From its sensible introduction to its very
Guy's Hospital. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. complex index, this is about the best book
that we are likely for some time to see
'
The most useful work of the kind that we upon the subject with which it deals.'
have seen. A most valuable and prac- A thenceum.
tical manual.' Manchester Guardian.
Philip Trevor. THE LIGHTER
E. V. Zenker. ANARCHISM. By SIDE OF CRICKET By Captain
E. V. Zenker. Demy Zvo. js. 6d. Philip Trevor (Dux). Crown Zvo.
Emily Lawless. A GARDEN DIARY. 6s. ^
By the Hon, Emily Lawless. A highly interesting volume, dealing with

such subjects as county cricket, village
Demy Svo. js. 6d. net. cricket, cricket for boys and girls,
S. J. Duncan. ON THE OTHER literary cricket, and various other sub-
jects which do not require a severe and
SIDE OF THE LATCH. By Sara technical treatment.
Jeannette Duncan (Mrs. Cotes), '
A wholly entertaining book.' Glasgow
Author of ' A Voyage of Consolation. Herald.
Crowfi Svo. 6s, '
The most welcome book on our national
game published for years.' County
W. Williamson. THE BRITISH Gentletnan.
GARDENER. By W.Williamson.
Illustrated. Demy %vo. \os. 6d.
Peter Beckford. THOUGHTS ON
HUNTING. By Peter Beckford.
Arnold White. EFFICIENCY AND Edited by J. Otho Paget, and
EMPIRE. By Arnold White. Illustrated by G. H. Jalland.
Crown Zvo. 6s. Demy Zvo. 10s. 6d.
'Stimulating and entertaining throughout, '
Beckford's " Thoughts on Hunting " has
long been a classic with sportsmen, and L. GREEK OLIGARCH-

Whibley.
the present edition will go far to make it IES THEIR ORGANISATION
:
a favourite with lovers of literature.'

Speaker.
AND CHARACTER. By L.
Whibley, M.A., Fellow of Pem-
E. B. Michell. THE ART AND broke College, Cambridge. Crown
PRACTICE OF HAWKING. By 8vo. 6s.
E. B, MiCHELL. With 3 Photo- L. L. Price. ECONOMIC SCIENCE
gravures by G. E. Lodge, and other AND PRACTICE. By L, L. Price,
Illustrations. Demy 8vo. los. 6d.
M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Ox-
'
No book is more full and authoritative than
ford. Crown 8vo. 6s.
this handsome treatise.'
— Morning Leader. J. S. Shedlock. THE PIANOFORTE
H. G. Hutchinson. THE GOLFING SONATA : Its Origin and Develop-
PILGRIM. By Horace G. ment. By J. S. Shedlock. Crown
Hutchinson. Crown 8vo. 6s. 8vo. $s.
'
Without this book the golfer's library will
'
This work should be in the possession of
be incomplete.' Pa^l Mall Gazette. every musician and amateur. A concise
and lucid history and a very valuable
J. WeUs. OXFORD AND OXFORD work for reference.' AthentBunt.
LIFE. By Members of the Uni- A. Hulme Beaman. PONS ASIN-
versity. Edited by J. Wells, M.A., ORUM; OR, A GUIDE TO
Fellow and Tutor of Wadham College. BRIDGE. By A. Hulme Bea-
Third Edition. Cr. 8vo. y. 6d. man. Fcap 8vo. 2s.
C. G. Robertson. VOCES ACADE- A practical guide, with many specimen
games, to the new game of Bridge.
MICS. By
C. Grant Robertson,
THE EXAMPLE OF
M.A., Fellow of All Souls', Oxford. E. M. Bo-wden.
With a Frontispiece. Poll 8vo. y. 6d. BUDDHA: Being Quotations from
'Decidedly clever and amusing.' Buddhist Literature for each Day in
A thencBUtn. the Year. Compiled by E. M.
Rosemary Cotes. DANTE'S GAR- Bowden. Third Edition. i6mo.
25. 6d.
DEN. By Rosemary Cotes. With
a Frontispiece. Secofid Edition. Fcp. F. Ware. EDUCATIONAL RE-
8vo. 2S. 6d. Leather, y. 6d. net. 1
FORM. By Fabian Ware, M.A.
'A charming collection of legends of the I
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
flowers mentioned by Dante. cademy.
'
A Sidney Peel. PRACTICAL LICENS-
Clifford Harrison. READING AND ING REFORM. By the Hon Sid-
READERS. By Clifford Harri- ney Peel, late Fellow of Trinity
son. Fcp. 8vo. 2S. 6d. College, Oxford, and Secretary to
'An extremely sensible little book.' 3fan- the Royal Commission on the Licens-
Chester Guardian. ing Laws. Crown 8vo. is. 6d.
Philosophy
L. T. Hobhouse. THE THEORY OF •
In every way an admirable book.'
KNOWLEDGE. By L. T. Hob- Glasgow Herald.
HOUSE, Fellow of C.C.C., Oxford.
Demy 8vo. 2\s. F. W. BusseU. THE SCHOOL OF
' The most important contribution to PLATO. By W. Bussell, D. D.
F. ,
English philosophy since the publication Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford.

of Mr. Bradley's "Appearance and Demy 8vo. ioj. 6d.
Reality." Glasgow Herald.
'
W. H. Fairbrother. THE PHILO- F. S. Granger. THE WORSHIP

SOPHY OF T. II. GREEN. By OF THE ROMANS. By F. S.
W. H. Fairbrother, M.A. Second Granger, M.A., Litt.D. Crown
Edition. Cr. 8vo. y. 6d. 8vo. 6s.
Science
E. H. Colbeck. DISEASES OF THE Ed. von Freudenreich, Trans-
HEART. By E. H. Colbeck, latedby J. R. Ainsworth Davis,
M.D. With numerous Illustrations. M.A. Second Edition, Revised,
Devty 8vo. 12s. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
W. C. C. Pakes. THE SCIENCE OF Chalmers Mitchell. OUTLINES OF
HYGIENE. By VV. C. C. Pakes. BIOLOGY. By P. Chalmers
With numerous Illustrations. Demy Mitchell, M.A. Illustrated. Cr.
8vo. 155. Svo. 6s.
*
A thoroughgoing working text-book of A text-book designed to cover the new
its subject, practical and well-stocked.' Schedule issued by the Royal College
— Scotsman. of Physicians and Surgeons.
A. T. Hare. THE CONSTRUC- George Massee. A MONOGRAPH

TION OF LARGE INDUCTION OF THE MYXOGASTRES. By
COILS. By A. T. Hare, M.A. George Massee. With 12 Coloured
With numerous Diagrams. Deitty Plates. Royal Svo. i8s. net.
Zvo. 65. '
A work much in advance of any book in
the language treating of this group of
J. E. Marr. THE SCIENTIFIC organisms. Indispensable to every
STUDY OF SCENERY. By J. E. student of the Myxogastres. Nature. '
Marr, F.R.S., Fellow of St. John's

College, Cambridge. Illustrated.
C. Stephenson and F. Suddards.
Crown Svo.
ORNAMENTAL DESIGN FOR
A volume,
6s.
moderate in size and readable
WOVEN FABRICS. By C.
in style, which will be acceptable alike
Stephenson, of the Technical
to the student of geology and geo-
College, Bradford, and F. Suddards,
graphy, and to the tourist.' A thencewn. of the Yorkshire College, Leeds.
With 65 full-page plates. Demy 8vo.
J. RitzemaBos. AGRICULTURAL Second Edition, ys. 6d.
ZOOLOGY. ByDr. J. RitzemaBos. '
The book is very ably done, displaying an
Translated by J. R. Ainsworth intimate knowledge of principles, good
Davis, M.A. With an Introduction taste, and the faculty of clear exposi-
by Eleanor A. Ormerod, F.E.S. tion.' Yorkshire Post.
With 155 Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
C. C. Channer and M. E. Roberts.
3s. 6d.
LACE-MAKING IN THE MID-
'The exceedingly good,
illustrations are
LANDS, PAST AND PRESENT.
whilst the information conveyed is in-
valuable.' Country Gentleman. By C. C. Channer and M. E.
Roberts. With 16 full-page Illus-
Ed. von Freudenreich. DAIRY trations. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
BACTERIOLOGY. A Short Manual An interesting book, illustrated by fascin-
for the Use of Students. By Dr. ating photographs. Speaker.
'
Theology
W. R. Inge. CHRISTIAN MYSTI- College, Oxford. Demv 8vo 12s. 6d.
CISM. The Bampton Lectures net.
It is fully worthy of the best traditions
for 1899. By W. R. Inge, M.A., connected with the Bampton Lecture-
Fellow and Tutor of Hertford ship.' Record.
REVELA-
Lady Julian of Norwich. F. S. Granger. THE SOUL OF A
TIONS OF DIVINE LOVE. By CHRISTIAN. By F. S. Granger,
the Lady Julian of Norwich. M.A., Litt.D. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Edited by Grace Warrack. Crown A book dealing with the evolution of the
8vo. 6s. religious life and experiences.
A partially modernised version, from the A remarkable book.' Glasgow Herald.
'
MS. in the British Museum of a book 'Both a scholarly and thoughtful book.'
which Dr. Dalgairns terms One of the
' Scotsman.
most remarkable books of the Middle H. Rashdall. DOCTRINE AND
Ages.' Mr. Inge in his Bampton Lec- DEVELOPMENT. By Hastings
tures on Christian Mysticism calls it Rashdall, M.A., Fellow and Tutor
' The
beautiful but little known Revcla- of New College, Oxford. Cr.8vo. 6s.
tio>ts.'
R. M. Benson. THE WAY OF HOLI- BLH. Henson. APOSTOLIC CHRIS-

TIANITY: As Illustrated by the
NESS : a Devotional Commentary Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians.
on the 119th Psalm. By R. M. By H. H. Henson, M.A., Fellow of
Benson, M.A., of the Cowley All Souls', Oxford, Canon of West-
Mission, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 5^. minster. Cr. 8vo. 6s.
'
His facility is delightful, and his very
sound and accurate theological sense H. H. Henson. DISCIPLINE AND
saves him from many of the obvious LAW. By H. Hensley Henson,
dangers of such a gift. Give him a M.A., Fellow of All Souls', Oxford.
word or a number and at once there Fcap. 8vo. IS. 6d.
springs forth a fertile stream of thought,
never commonplace, usually both deep H. H. Henson. LIGHT AND
and fresh. For devotional purposes we LEAVEN Historical
: and
think this book most valuable. Readers Social Sermons. By H, H. Hen-
will find a great wealth of thought if son, M.A. Crown 8vo. 6s.
they use the book simply as a help to
Guardian. J. Houghton Kennedy. ST. PAUL'S
meditation. '
Jacob Behmen. THE SUPERSENS-

SECOND AND THIRD
EPISTLES TO THE CORIN-
UAL LIFE. By Jacob Behmen. THIANS. With Introduction, Dis-
Edited by Bernard Holland. sertations, and Notes, by James
Fcap 8vo. 3^. 6d. Houghton Kennedy, D.D.,
S. R. SERMONS ON SUB-
Driver. Assistant Lecturer in Divinity in the
JECTS CONNECTED WITH University of Dublin. Crown8vo. 6s.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. By S. Bennett and Adeney. A BIBLICAL
R. Driver, D.D., Canon of Christ INTRODUCTION. By W. H.
Church, Regius Professor of Hebrew Bennett, M. A. and W. F. Adeney,
,
in the University of Oxford. Cr. 8vo. M.A. Crown 8vo. js. 6d.
6s. '
It makes available to the ordinary reader
'A welcome companion to the author's the best scholarship of the day in the
famous " Introduction."' Guardian. fieldof Biblical introduction. know We
T. K. FOUNDERS OF OLD
Cheyne. of no book which comes into competi-
tion with 3Ianchester Guardian.
TESTAMENT CRITICISM. By W. H. Bennett. A PRIMER OF
it.'
T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Pro-

fessor at Oxford. Large Crown 8vo. THE BIBLE. By W. H. Bennett.
js. 6d.
Second Edition. Cr. 8vo. as. 6d.
A historical sketch of O. T. Criticism.
'
The work of an honest, fearless, and sound
and an excellent guide in a small
critic,
Walter Lock. ST. PAUL, THE compass to the books of the Bible.'
MASTER-BUILDER. By Walter Manchester Guardian.
Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble C. F. G. Mastennan. TENNYSON
College. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. AS A RELIGIOUS TEACHER.
'The essence of the Pauline teaching is By C. F, G. Masterman. Crown
condensed into little more than a hun- 8vo. 6s.
dred pages, yet no point of importance '
A thoughtful and penetrating appreciation,
is overlooked.'— C««r<^/a«. full of interest and suggestion.' IVorld.
WiUiam Harrison. CLOVELLY with Introduction, Notes, etc., by

SERMONS. By William Harri- W. Yorke Fausset, M.A. Cr. 8vo.
son, M.A., late Rector of Clovelly. 35. ed.
With a Preface by LuCAS Malet.
'
'
Cr. 8vo. 31. 6d.

J. H. Burn. THE
SOUL'S PILGRIM-
AGE Devotional Readings from
:
Cecilia Robinson.THE MINISTRY the published and unpublished

OF DEACONESSES. By Deacon- writings of George Body, D.D.
ness Cecilia Robinson. With an Selected and arranged by J. H.
Introduction by the Lord Bishop of Burn, B.D. Pott8vo. 2s. 6d.
Winchester. Cr. 8vo. 3J. 6d.
*A learned and interesting book.' Scots-
F. Weston. THE HOLY SACRI-
man.
FICE. By F. Weston, M.A.,
Curate of St. Matthew's, Westmin-
E. B. Layard. RELIGION IN BOY- ster. Pott 8vo. 6d. net.
HOOD. Notes on the Rehgious
Training of Boys. By E. B. A Kempis. THE IMITATION OF
Layard, M.A. i8mo. is. CHRIST. By Thomas a Kempis.
THE OECU- With an Introduction by Dean
T. Herbert Bindley. Illustrated by C. M.
Farrar.
MENICAL DOCUMENTS OF Gere. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo.
THE FAITH. Edited with Intro- 3^. ed. Padded morocco, 5^.
ductions and Notes by T. Herbert 'Amongst all the innumerable English
Bindley, B.D., Merton College, editions of the "Imitation," there can
Oxford. Crown 8vo. 6s. have been few which were prettier than
A historical account of the Creeds. this one, printed in strong and handsome
type, with all the glory of red initials.'—
H. TEXTS FOR SER-
M. Barron. Glasgow Herald.
MONS ON VARIOUS OCCA-
SIONS AND SUBJECTS. Com- J. Keble. THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.
piled and Arranged by H. M. Bar- By John Keble, With an Intro-
ron, B.A., of Wadham College, duction and Notes by W. Lock,
Oxford, with a Preface by Canon D.D., Warden of Keble College.
Scott Holland. Crown 8vo. 3^.
Illustrated by R. Anning Bell.
ed. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. y. 6d.
Padded morocco. 5s.
W. Yorke Fausset. THE DE '
' The present edition is annotated with all
CA TECHIZANDIS R UDIBUS the care and insight to be expected from
OF ST. AUGUSTINE. Edited, Mr. Lock.' Guardian.
©jfocD Commentaries
General Editor, Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of Keble College, Dean
Ireland's Professor of Exegesis in the University of Oxford.
THE BOOK OF JOB. Edited, with degree of appreciation. To the busy
worker and the intelligent student the
Introduction and Notes, by E, C. S.
commentary will be a real boon and it
Gibson, D.D., Vicar of Leeds. Demy
;
will, if we are not mistaken, be much in

8vo. bs. demand. The Introduction is almost a
'
The publishers are to be congratulated on model of concise, straightforward, pre-
the start the series has made.' Times. fatory remarks on the subject treated.'
'
Dr. Gibson's work is worthy of a high Athenceutn.
1banObooF?3 of ^beologi?
General Editor, A. Robertson, D.D. Principal of King's College, London.
THE XXXIX. ARTICLES OF THE Principal of Wells Theological Col-

CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Edited lege. Second and Cheaper Edition
with an Introduction by E. C. S. in One Volume. Demy 8vo. 12s. 6d.
Gibson, D.D., Vicar of Leeds, late '
We welcome with the utmost satisfaction
a new, cheaper, and more convenient '

A clear and remarkably full account of the
edition of Dr. Gibson's book. It was main currents of speculation. Scholarly
greatly wanted. Dr. Gibson has given precision . . . genuine tolerance . . .
theological students just what they want, intense interest in his subject are — Mr.
and we should like to think that it was Ottley's merits.' Guardian.
in the hands of every candidate for
orders.' Guardian. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE CREEDS. By
HISTORY OF RELIGION. By A. E. Burn, B.D., Examining Chap-
F. B. JEVONS, M.A., Litt.D., Prin- lain to the Bishop of Lichfield. Demy
8vo. los. 6d.
cipal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall.
Demy 8vo. los. 6d.
*
This book may be expected to hold its
place as an authority on its subject.'
'
Tke merit of this book lies in the penetra- Spec ia tor.
tion, the singular acuteness and force of
the author's judgment. He is at once THE PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION
critical and luminous, at once just and
suggestive. A comprehensive and
IN ENGLAND AND AMERICA.
thorough book.' Birmingham Post. By Alfred Caldecott, D.D.,
THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCAR- Demy 8vo. los. 6d.
'Singularly well-informed, comprehensive^
NATION. By R. L. Ottley, M.A.,
and fair.' Glasgow Herald.
late of Magdalen College,
fellow '
A lucid and informative account, which
Oxon., and Principal of Pusey House. certainly deserves a place in every
In Two Volumes. Demy 8vo. 15^. philosophical library.' Scotsman.
Zhc Cburcbman'0 Xibrar^

General Editor, J. H.BURN, B.D., Examining Chaplain to the
Bishop of Aberdeen.
THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH 'A most able book at once exceedmgly
CHRISTIANITY. By W. E. Col- thoughtful and richly suggestive.' Glas-
lins, M.A. With Map. Cr. 8vo.
gow Herald.
y. 6d. THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE
'
An excellent example of thorough and fresh PRAYER BOOK : Its Literary and
historical work.' Guardian. Liturgical Aspects. ByJ. Dow^den,
SOME NEW TESTAMENT PRO- D.D. , Lord Bishop of Edinbtirgh.
BLEMS. By Arthur Wright, Crown 8vo. 3^. td.
M.A., Fellow of Queen's College, 'Scholarly and interesting.' Manchester
Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s. Guardian.
'
Real students will revel in these reverent,
acute, and pregnant essays in Biblical EVOLUTION. ByF.B.jEVONS.M.A.,
scholarship.' Great Thoughts.
Litt.D., Principal of Hatfield Hall,
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN Durham. Crozvn 8vo. y. 6d.
HERE AND HEREAFTER. By '
A well-written book, full of sound thinking
Canon Winterbotham, M.A., happily expressed.' Manchester Guar-
B.SC, LL.B. Cr. 8vo. 35. bd. dian.
Wciz Cburcbman'0 :ffiible

General Editor, J. H. BURN, B.D.
Messrs. Methuen are issuing a series of expositions upon most of the books
of the Bible. The volumes will be practical and devotional, and the text of the
authorised version is explained in sections, which will correspond as far as
possible with the Church Lectionary.
THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO tive
we have
manual for people at large, which
ever seen.' Church Gazette.
THE GALATIANS. Explained by
A. W. Robinson, Vicar of All ECCLESIASTES. Explained by A.
Hallows, Barking. Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d. W. Streane, D.D. Fcap. ivo.
net. IS. 6d. net.
'
Scholarly_ suggestive, and particularly
'
The most attractive, sensible, and instruc- |
interesting. '
Bookfnan.
THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE has managed to compress a good deal of

APOSTLE TO THE PHILIP- information into a limited space.'
—
Gtiardian.
PIANS. Explained by C. R. D.
Biggs. B.D, Fcap. Zvo. xs. td. THE EPISTLE OF ST. JAMES.
net.
Edited by H. W. Fulford, M.A.
Mr. Biggs' work is very thorough, and he Fcap. Svo. IS. 6d. net.
Zbc Xibrar^ ot 2)evotion

Fott Svo, cloth, 2s.; leather, 2s. 6d. net.
'This series excellent.'— The Bishop of London.

is
'
Very delightful.'—The Bishop of Bath and Wells.
'Well worth the attention of the Clergy.'— The Bishop of Lichfield.
'
The new " Library of Devotion " is excellent.'— The Bishop of Peterborough.
•
Chz.rm\ng.'— Record. Delightful.'— C/i«rc/i Bells.
'
THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AU- been published more attractively."

GUSTINE. Newly Translated, Academy.
with an Introduction and Notes, by A SERIOUS CALL TO A DEVOUT
C. Bigg, D.D. late Student of Christ
, AND HOLY LIFE. By William
Church. Third Edition. Law. Edited, with an Introduction,
The translation is an excellent piece of by C. Bigg, D.D., late Student of
English, and the introduction is a mas- Church.
Christ
terly exposition. We
augur well of a This is a reprint, word for word and line for
series which begins so satisfactorily.'
line, of the Editio Princeps.
Titnes.
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By John

THE TEMPLE. By George Her-
bert. Edited, with an Introduction
Keble. With Introduction and
and Notes, by E. C. S. Gibson,
Notes by Walter Lock, D.D.,
D.D. Vicar of Leeds.
,
Warden of Keble College, Ireland This edition contains Walton's Life of

Professor at Oxford. Herbert, and the text is that of the first
edition.
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. A
Revised Translation, with an Introduc- A GUIDE TO ETERNITY. By
tion, by C. Bigg, D.D., late Student Cardinal Bona. Edited, with an
of Christ Church. Second Edition. Introduction and Notes, by J. W.
A practically new translation of this book, Stanbridge, B.D., late Fellow of
which the reader has, almost for the first St. John's College, Oxford.
time, exactly in the shape in which it
left the hands of the author. THE PSALMS OF DAVID. With an
Introduction and Notes by B. W.
A BOOK OF DEVOTIONS. By J. Randolph, D.D., Principal of the
W. Stanbridge, B.D., Rector of Theological College, Ely.
Bainton, Canon of York, and some- A devotional and practical edition of the
time Fellow of St, John's College, Prayer Book version of the Psalms.
Oxford.
'
It is probably the best book of its kind. It LYRA APOSTOLICA. With an In-
deserves high commendation.' Church troduction by Canon Scott Hol-
Gazette, land, and Notes by H. C. Beech-
ing, M.A.
LYRA INNOCENTIUM. By John
Keble. Edited, with Introduction THE INNER WAY. Being Thirty-
and Notes, by Walter Lock, D.D,, six Sermons for Festivals by John
Warden of Keble College, Oxford. Tauler. Edited, with an Introduc-
' This sweet and fragrant book has never tion, by A. W. Hutton, M.A.
XcaDcrs of IRcliQion
Edited by H. C. BEECHING, M. A. With Portraits, Crown Svo. ^s. 6d.
A series of short biographies of the most prominent leaders of religious
life and thought of all ages and countries.
The following are ready
CARDINAL NEWMAN. By R. H. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY.
HUTTON. By E. L. Cutts, D.D.
JOHN WESLEY. By J. H. Over- WILLIAM LAUD. By W. H.
ton, M.A. Hutton, M.A.
BISHOP WILBERFORCE. By G. JOHN KNOX. By F. MacCunn.
W. Daniell, M.A. JOHN HOWE. By R. F. Horton,
D.D.
CARDINAL MANNING. By A. W. BISHOP KEN. By F. A. Clarke,
HUTTON, M.A, M.A.
CHARLES SIMEON. By H. C. G. GEORGE FOX, THE QUAKER.
MouLE, D,D. ByT. HODGKIN, D.C.L.
JOHN KEBLE. By Walter Lock, JOHN DONNE. By Augustus
D.D. Jessopp, D.D.
THOMAS CHALMERS. By Mrs. THOMAS CRANMER. By. A. J.
Oliphant. Mason.
LANCELOT ANDREWES. By R. BISHOP LATIMER. By R. M. Car-
L. Ottley, M.A. LYLE and A. J. Carlyle, M.A.
Other volumes will be announced in due course.
Fiction
Marie Corelli's Novels
Crown %vo. 6j. each.
A ROMANCE OF TWO WORLDS. conceptionis magnificent, and is likely
Twenty-Second Edition. to win

an abiding place within the
VENDETTA. Sixteenth Edition. memory of man. The author has . . .
immense command of language, and a

THELMA. Twenty-Fifth Edition. limitless audacity. . . . This interesting
ARDATH: THE STORY OF A and remarkable romance will live long
after much of the ephemeral literatur«
DEAD SELF. Thirteenth Edition. of the day is forgotten. ... A literary
THE SOUL OF LILITH. Tenth phenomenon novel, and even sub-
. . .
Edition. lime.'— W. T. Stead in the Review

WORMWOOD. Eleventh Edition. of Reviews.
BARABBAS A DREAM OF THE THE MASTER CHRISTIAN.
:
WORLD'S TRAGEDY. Thirty- [i6oth Thousand.

sixth Edition.
'It cannot be denied that "The Master
Christian " is a powerful book ; that it is
*
The tender reverence of the treatment one likely to raise uncomfortable ques-
and the imaginative beauty of the writ-
tions in all but the most self-satisfied
ing have reconciled us to the daring of
readers, and that it strikes at the root
the conception, and the conviction is
forced on us that even so exalted a sub-
of the failure of the Churches the decay —
ject cannot be made too familiar to us,
—
of faith in a manner which shows the
inevitable disaster heaping up . . The .
provided it be presented in the true spirit good Cardinal Bonpr^ is a beautiful
of Christian faith. The amplifications figure, fit to stand beside the good
of the Scripture narrative are often con- Bishop in " Les Misdrables" The . . .
ceived with high poetic insight, and this chapter in which the Cardinal appears
"Dream of the World's Tragedy" is with Manuel before Leo xiii. is char-
a lofty and not inadequate paraphrase acterised by extraordinary realism and
of the supreme climax of the inspired dramatic intensity ... It is a book with
narrative.' Dublin Review. a serious purpose expressed with abso-
THE SORROWS OF SATAN. lute unconventionality and passion . . .
Forty- Fourth Edition. And this is to say it is a book worth

'
A very powerful piece of work. . . . The r eading. '
—
.£".ra w/«^r.
Anthony Hope's Novels

Crown %vo. 6s. each.
THE GOD IN THE CAR. Ninth faithful friend,

— Guardian.
and a magnanimous foe.
Edition.
'
A very remarkable book, deserving of PHROSO. Illustrated by H. R.
critical analysis impossible within our Millar. Eifth Edition.
limit brilliant, but not
; superficial ;
'
The tale is thoroughly fresh, quick with
well considered, but not elaborated vitality, stirring the blood.' St. James's
constructed with the proverbial art that Gazette.
conceals, but yet allows itself to be SIMON DALE. Illustrated. Eifth
enjoyed by readers to whom fine literary Edition.
method is a keen pleasure.'— The World. 'There is searching analysis of human
A CHANGE OF AIR. Sixth Edition. nature, with a most ingeniously con-
'A graceful, vivacious comedy, true to structed plot. Mr. Hope has drawn the
human nature. The characters are contrasts of his women with marvellous
traced with a masterly hand.' Titnes. subtlety and delicacy.' Times.
A MAN OF MARK. Eifth Edition. THE KING'S MIRROR. Third
'Of Mr. Hope's books, "A Man of
all Edition.
Mark" is the one which best compares '
In elegance, delicacy, and tact it ranks
with "The Prisoner of Zenda." '
with the best of his novels, while in the

National Observer. wide range of its portraiture and the
THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT subtilty of its analysis it surpasses all his
ANTONIO. Eourth Edition. earlier ventures. '
Spectator.
'
It is a perfectly enchanting story of love QUISANTE. Third Edition.
and chivalry, and pure romance. The '
The book notable for a very high liter-
is
Count is the most constant, desperate, ary quality, and an impress of power
and modest and tender of lovers, a peer- and mastery on every -pzgQ.'— Daily
less gentleman, an intrepid fighter, a Chronicle.
Gilbert Parker's Novels

Crown 8vo. 6s. each.
PIERRE AND HIS PEOPLE. mond is drawn unerringly. '

Pall Mall
Fifth Edition. Gazette.
'
Stories happily conceived and finely ex- AN ADVENTURER OF THE
ecuted. There is strength and genius in NORTH The Last Adventures of
:
Mr. Parker's style.' Daily Telegraj>h. '

Pretty Pierre.' Second Edition.
'
The present book of fine and mov-
is full
MRS. FALCHION. Eourth Edition. ing stories of the great North, and it
A splendid study of character.'
'
will add to Mr. Parker's already high
A thenaunt. reputation.' Glasgow Herald.
THE TRANSLATION OF A THE SEATS OF THE MIGHTY.
SAVAGE. Illustrated. Eleventh Edition.
'
The plot is and one difficult to
original Mr. Parker has produced a really fine
work out ; but Mr. Parker has done it historical novel.' Athenceum..
with great skill and delicacy. '
A great book.' Black and White.
— THE BATTLE OF THE STRONG Daily Chronicle. :
THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. a Romance of Two Kingdoms.

Illustrated.
Illustrated. Fourth Editio?i.
Seventh Edition.
A '
Nothing more vigorous or more human has
'
A rousing and dramatic tale. book like
come from Mr. Gilbert Parker than this
this, in which swords flash, great sur-
novel. It has all the graphic power of
prises are undertaken, and daring deeds
his last book, with truer feeling for the
done, in which men and women live and
romance, both of human life and wild
love in the old passionate way, is a joy
nature.' Literature.
inexpressible.' Daily Chronicle.
THE POMP OF THE LAVILET-
WHEN VALMOND CAME TO TES. Second Edition. 3^. 6d.
PONTIAC: The Story of a Lost 'Unforced pathos, and a deeper know-
Napoleon. Fifth Edition. ledge of human nature than Mr. Parker
'
Here we find romance— real, breathing, has ever displayed htioxc.'—Pall Mall
living romance. The character of Val- Gazette,
S. Baring Gould's Novels

Crown %vo. 6s. each.
ARMINELL. Fifth Edition. THE BROOM-SQUIRE. Illustrated.
URITH. Fifth Edition. Fourth Edition.
IN THE ROAR OF THE SEA. THE PENNYCOMEQUICKS.
Seventh Edition. Third Edition.
MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGEN- DARTMOOR IDYLLS.
VEN. Fourth Edition. GUAVAS THE TINNER. lUus-
CHEAP JACK ZITA. Fourth Edition. trated. Second Edition.
THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fifth BLADYS. Illustrated. Second Edition,
Edition. DOMITIA. Illustrated. Second Edi-
MARGERY OF QU ETHER. Third tion.
Edition. PABO THE PRIEST.
JACQUETTA. Third Edition. WINEFRED. Illustrated. Second
KITTY ALONE. Fifth Edition. Edition.
NOlilMI. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. THE FROBISHERS.
Conan Doyle. ROUND THE RED Author of Many Cargoes.
'
Illus- '
LAMP. By A. Conan Doyle. trated, Fourth Edition. Crown

Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 8vo. 3^. 6d.
•The book is far and away the best view '
Can be unreservedly recommended to all
that has been vouchsafed us behind the who have not lost their appetite for
scenes of the consulting-room.' Illus- wholesome laughter. Spectator. '
trated London News. '

The best humorous book published for
Stanley Weyman. UNDER THE many a day.' Black and White.
RED ROBE. By Stanley Wey- W. W. Jacobs. MANY
CARGOES.
man, Author of A Gentleman of ' By W. W. Jacobs. Twenty-fifth
France.' With Illustrations by R. C. Edition. Crown 8vo. y, 6d.
Woodville. Sixteenth Edition. W. W. Jacobs. SEA URCHINS. By
Crown 8vo. 6s, W. W. Jacobs. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
•Every one who reads books at all must EdnaLyall. DERRICK VAUGHAN.
read this thrilling romance, from the
first page of which to the last the breath-
NOVELIST, a^-znd thousand. By
less reader haled along. An inspira-
is
Edna Lyall. Crown 8vo. 3^. 6d.
tion of manliness and courage.' Daily George Gissing. THE TOWN TRA-
Chronicle. VELLER. By George Gissing,
Lucas Malet. THE WAGES OF Author of 'Demos,' 'In the Year of
SIN. By Lucas Malet. Thir- Jubilee,' etc. Second Edition. Cr.
teenth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 8vo. 6s.
Lucas Malet. THE CARISSIMA. '
It is a bright and witty book above all
By Lucas Malet, Author of 'The things. Polly Sparkes is a splendid bit
Wages of Sin,' etc. Fourth Edition. of work.'— /'«// Mall Gazette.

Crown 8vo.
'
The spirit of Dickens is in it.' Bookman.
6s.
Lucas Malet. THE GATELESS George Gissing. THE CROWN OF
BARRIER. By LucAS Malet, LIFE. By George Gissing, Author
Author of 'The Wages of Sin.' of '
Demos,' '
The Town Traveller,'
Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. etc. Crown 8vo. 6s.
'
The story is told with a sense of style and a Henry James. THE SOFT SIDE.
dramatic vigour that makes ita pleasure By Henry James, Author of What '
to read. The workmanship arouses en- Maisie Knew.' Second Edition.

thusiasm. '
— Times. Crown 8vo. 6s.
W. W. Jacobs. A MASTER OF *
The amazing cleverness marks the great
CRAFT. By W. W. Jacobs. worker. '—-Speaker.
H. James. THE SACRED FOUNT. relief ... a most artistic and satis-
By Henry James, Author of '
What factory achievement.' Spectator.
Maisie Knew.' Crown Svo. 6s.
" The Sacred Fount" is only for the few,
MaxPemberton. THE FOOTSTEPS
'
OF A THRONE. By Max Pem-
but they will .prize it highly, for it is
BERTON. Illustrated. Second Edi-
worthy of its illustrious author.' Pall
Mall Gazette. tion. Crown Svo. 6s.
S. R. Crockett. LOCHINVAR. By
'
A story of pure adventure, with a sensa-
tion on every page.' Daily Mail.
S. R. Crockett, Author of 'The
Raiders,' etc. Illustrated. Second M. Sutherland. ONE HOUR AND
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. THE NEXT. By The Duchess
'Full of gallantry and pathos, of the clash OF Sutherland. Third Edition.
of arms, and brightened by episodes Crown Svo. 6s.
of humour and love.' Westminster 'Passionate, vivid, dramatic' Literature.
Gazette.
S. R. Crockett. THE STANDARD Mrs. Clifford. A FLASH OF
BEARER. By S. R. Crockett. SUMMER. By Mrs. W. K. Clif-
Crown 8vo. 6s. ford, Author of 'Aunt Anne,' etc.
'A delightful talc.'— Speaker. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'
Mr. Crockett at his best.' Literature. '
The story is a very beautiful one, exquis-
Artlmr Morrison. TALES OF itely told.' Speaker.
MEAN STREETS. By Arthur Emily Lawless. HURRISH. By the
Morrison. Fifth Edition. Cr. Honble. Emily Lawless, Author of
Svo. 6s.
'
Maelcho, ' etc. Fifth Edition. Cr.
Told with consummate art and extra- Svo. 6s.
ordinary detail. In the true humanity
of the book lies its justification, the
Emily Lawless. MAELCHO : a Six-
permanence of its interest, and its in-
teenth Century Romance. By the
dubitable triumph.' AthencEunt. Honble. Emily Lawless. Second
•A great book. The author's method is Edition. Crown
Svo. 6s.
amazingly effective, and produces a '
A really great book.' Spectator.
thrilling sense of reality. The writer Emily Lawless. TRAITS AND
lays upon us a master hand. The book
is simply appalling and irresistible in
CONFIDENCES. By the Honble.
its interest. _
It isEmily Lawless.
humorous also with- ;
Crown Svo. 6s.
out humour it
Eden PhiUpotts. LYING P R O-
would not make the mark
it is certain to make.' World.
Arthur Morrison. A CHILD OF PHETS. By Eden Phillpotts.
Crown Svo. 6s.
THE JAGO. By Arthur Morri- Eden Phillpotts. CHILDREN OF
son. Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
The book is a masterpiece.' Pall Mall
* THE MIST. By Eden Phillpotts.
Gazette. Crown Svo. 6s.
Told with great vigour and powerful sim- Eden Phillpotts.
'
plicity.' Athenceum.
THE HUMAN
Arthur Morrison. TO LONDON BOY. By Eden Phillpotts, Author
of 'Children of the Mist.' With a
TOWN. By Arthur Morrison, Frontispiece. Fourth Editiofi. Crown
Author of 'Tales of Mean Streets,'
Svo. 6s.
etc. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Mr. Phillpotts knows exactly what school-
'
'
We have idyllic pictures, woodland scenes
boys do, and can lay bare their inmost
fullof tenderness and grace. "This . . .
thoughts; likewise he shows an all-per-
isthe new Mr. Arthur Morrison gracious
vading sense of humour.' AcadeTny.
and tender, sympathetic and human.'
Daily Telegraph. Eden Phillpotts. SONS OF THE
Arthur Morrison. CUNNING MORNING. By Eden Phill-
MURRELL. By Arthur Mor- potts, Author of The Children of
'
rison, Author of '

A Child of the the Mist.' Second Edition. Crown
Jago,' etc. Svo. Crown 6s. Svo. 6s.
'The plot hangs admirably. The dialogue 'A book of strange power and fascination.'
is perfect.' Daily Mail. —Morning Post.
'Admirable. . . . Delightful humorous '
Inimitable hnmoMx.'— Daily Graphic,
Jane Barlow. A CREEL OF IRISH Alfred Ollivant. OWD BOB, THE

STORIES. By Jane Barlow, GREY DOG OF KENMUIR. By
Author of 'Irish Idylls.' Second Alfred Ollivant. Fourth Edition.
Edition. Crown 2,vo. 6s. Cr. Svo. 6s.
'
Vivid and singularly real.' Scotsman. 'Weird, thrilling, strikingly graphic.'—
Punch.
Jane Barlow. FROM THE EAST '
We admire this book. one to read It is
UNTO THE WEST. By Jane
. . .
with admiration and to praise with en-

Barlow. Crown 8vo. 6s. thusiasm.' Bookman.
It is a fine, open-air, blood-stirring book,
J. H. Findlater. THE GREEN '
to be enjoyed by every man and woman

GRAVES OF BALGOWRIE. By to whom a dog is dear.' Literature.
Jane H. Findlater. Fourth
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. B. M. Croker. PEGGY OF THE
'A powerful and vivid story.' Standard. BARTONS. By B. M. Croker,
'
A beautiful story, sad and strange as truth Author of 'Diana Barrington.'
itself.' Vanity Fair. Fifth Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'A singularly original, clever, and beautiful '
Mrs. Croker excels in the admirably simple,
story.' Guardian. easy, and direct flow of her narrative, the
'
Reveals to us a new writer of undoubted briskness of her dialogue, and the geni-
faculty and reserve force.' Spectator. ality of her portraiture.' Spectator.
'An exquisite idyll, delicate, affecting, and
beautiful.'— ^/ac/t and White. B. M. Croker. A STATE SECRET.
J. H. Findlater. A DAUGHTER By B. M. Croker, Author of Peggy '
OF STRIFE. By Jane H. Find- of the Bartons, etc. Second Edition.

'
later. Crown 8vo. 6s.

Crown Svo. 35. 6d.
'
Full of humour, and always fresh and
J. H. Findlater. RACHEL. By pleasing.' Daily Express.
Jane H. Findlater. Second '
Ingenious, humorous, pretty, pathetic*
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. World.
'
A not unworthy successor to " The Green
H. G. WeUs. THE STOLEN BA-
Graves of Balgowrie." Critic.
'
CILLUS, and other Stories. By

J. H. and Mary Findlater. TALES H. G. Wells. Second Edition.
THAT ARE TOLD. By Jane H. Crown Svo. 6s.
Findlater, and Mary Findlater. '
The impressions of a very striking imagina-
Crown Svo. 6s. tion.' Saturday Review.
'Delightful and graceful stories for which
we have the warmest welcome.' H. G. Wells. THE PLATTNER
Literature. STORY and Others. By H. G.
Wells. Second Edition, Cr. Svo.
Mary Findlater. A NARROW WAY. 6s.
By Mary Findlater, Author of '
Weird and mysterious, they seem to hold
'Over the Hills.' Third Edition. the reader as by a magic spell.' Scots-
Crown Svo. 6s. man.
'
A wholesome, thoughtful, and interesting
novel.' Morning Post. Sara Jeannette Duncan. A VOYAGE
'
Singularly pleasant, full of quiet humour OF CONSOLATION. By Sara
and tender sympathy.' Manchester Jeannette Duncan, Author of An '
Guardian. American Girl in London.' Illus-

Mary Findlater. OVER THE trated, Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
HILLS. By Mary Findlater. '
The dialogue is full of wit.' Globe.
Second EditioTi. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Sara Jeannette Duncan. THE PATH
'
A strong and wise book of deep insight and
OF A STAR. By Sara Jeannette
unflinching truth.' Birmingham Post.
Duncan, Author of A Voyage of '
Mary Findlater. BETTY MUS- Consolation.' Illustrated. Second

GRAVE. By Mary Findlater. Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'
Handled with dignity and delicacy. . . .
C. F. Keary. THE JOURNALIST.
A most touching story.' Spectator. By C. F. Keary. Cr. Svo. 6s.
W. E. Norris. MATTHEW AUSTIN. C. J. Cutcliffe Hyne. PRINCE

By W. E. Norris, Author of Made- ' RUPERT THE BUCCANEER.
moiselle de Mersac,' etc. Fourth By C. J. Cutcliffe Hyne, Author
Edition, Crown 8vo. 6s. of 'Captain Kettle.' With 8 Illus-
'
An intellectually satisfactory and morally trations by G. Grenville Manton.
bracing novel.' Daily Telegraph. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
W.E. Norris. HIS GRACE. ByW. E. A narrative of the romantic adventures of
Norris. Third Edition. Cr. 8vo. the famous Prince Rupert, and of his
exploits in the Spanish Indies after the
6s.
Cromwellian wars.
W. E. Norris. THE DESPOTIC
LADY AND OTHERS. By W. E. Mrs. Dudeney. THE THIRD
Norris. Crown 8vo. 6s. FLOOR. By Mrs. Dudeney,
Author of 'Folly Corner.' Second
W. E. Norris. CLARISSA FURIOSA.
By W. E. Norris. Cr. Svo. 6s. Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
'
As a story it is admirable, as ajeu d' esprit
'
One of the brightest, wittiest, and most
itis capital, as a lay sermon studded
entertaining novels published this
with gems of wit and wisdom it is a spring.'
Sketch.
model.'— rA^r World.
Andrew Balfour. BY OFSTROKE
W. E. Norris. GILES INGILBY. By SWORD. By A. Balfour. Illus-
W. E. Norris. Illustrated. Second trated. Fourth Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. A
'
recital of thrilling interest, told with
'Interesting, wholesome, and charmingly
unflagging vigour. '—Globe.
written.' Glasgow Herald.
W. E. Norris. AN OCTAVE. By Andrew Balfour. TO ARMS! By
W. E. Norris. Second Edition. Andrew Balfour. Illustrated.
Crown Svo. 6s. Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
W. Clark RusseU. MY DANISH '

The marvellous perils through which Allan
passes are told in powerful and lively
SWEETHEART. By W. Clark fashion. Pall Mall Gazette.
'
Russell. Illustrated. Fourth

Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. Andrew Balfour. VENGEANCE IS
Robert Barr. IN THE MIDST OF MINE. By Andrew Balfour,
ALARMS. By Robert Barr. Author of 'By Stroke of Sword.'
Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
Illustrated. Crown Svo. 6s.
'
A book which has abundantly satisfied us '
A vigorous piece of work, well written, and
by its capital humour.' Daily Chronicle. abounding in stirring incidents.' Glas-
gow Herald.
Robert Barr. THE MUTABLE
MANY. By Robert Barr. Second R. Hicbens. BYEWAYS. By Robert
Edition. Crown
Svo. 6s. HiCHENS. Author of 'Flames,' etc.
'
Very much the best novel that Mr. Barr Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s.
has yet given us. There is much insight '
The work is undeniably that of a man of
in it, and much excellent humour.' striking imagination.' Daily News.
Daily Chronicle.
Robert Barr. THE COUNTESS R. Hichens. TONGUES OF
TEKLA, By Robert Barr. Third CONSCIENCE. By Robert
Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. Hichens, Author of 'Flames.'
'Of these mediaeval romances, which are Second Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
now gaining ground, "The Countess '
Of a strange, haunting quality.' Glasgow
Tekla" is the very best we have seen. Herald.
The
story is written in clear English,
and a picturesque, moving style.' Pall Stephen Crane. WOUNDS IN
Mall Gazette. THE RAIN. War Stories. By
Robert Barr. THE STRONG ARM. Stephen Crane, Author of The '
By Robert Barr, Author of 'The Red Badge of Courage.' Second

Countess Tekla.' Illustrated. Second Edition, Crown Svo, 6s,
Edition, Svo. 6s. '
A fascinating volume.' Spectator.
Dorothea Gerard. THE CON- that quiet unerring realism which always
QUEST OF LONDON. By distinguishes the author's best work.'
Academy.
Dorothea Gerard, Author of
'Lady Baby.' Second Edition. Crown C. F. Goss. THE REDEMPTION
^vo. 6j. OF DAVID CORSON. By C. F.
'
Bright and entertaining.' Spectator. Goss. Third Edition. Crown %vo. 6s.
'
Highly entertaining and enjoyable.' '
Dramatic instinct and a vigorous imagina-
Scotsman. tion mark this soul history of a Quaker
mystic. A thencBum.
THE SUPREME
'
Dorothea Gerard. '

A really fine book.' Public Opinion.
CRIME. By Dorothea Gerard. '
A powerful and original book, and un-
Crown Svo. 6s. usually striking.' Pilot.
'
One of the very best plots we have met '
Worthy to stand high in the ranks of
with in recent fiction, and handled with modern fiction.' Literature.
OTHER SIX-SHILLING NOVELS

Crown Svo.
A SECRETARY OF LEGATION. SERVANTS OF SIN. By J. Bloun-

By Hope Dawlish. delle-Burton.
THE SALVATION SEEKERS. By PATH AND GOAL. Second Edition.
Noel Ainslie. By Ada Cambridge.
STRANGE HAPPENINGS. By W. THE SEEN AND THE UNSEEN.
Clark Russell and other Authors. By Richard Marsh.
THE BLACK WOLF'S BREED. MARVELS AND MYSTERIES. By
By Harris Dickson. Illustrated. Richard Marsh.
Second Edition. ELMSLIE'S DRAG-NET. By E. PI.
BELINDA FITZWARREN. By the Strain.
Earl of Iddesleigh. A FOREST OFFICER. By Mrs.
DERWENT'S HORSE. By Victor Penny.
Rousseau. THE WHITE HECATOMB. By
ANNE MAULEVERER. By Mrs. W. C. Scully.
Caffyn (Iota). BETWEEN SUN AND SAND. By
SIREN CITY. By Benjamin Swift. W. C. Scully.
AN ENGLISHMAN. By Mary L. SIR ROBERT'S FORTUNE. By
Rendered. Mrs. Oliphant.
THE PLUNDERERS. By Morley THE TWO MARYS. By Mrs.
Roberts. Oliphant.
THE HUMAN INTEREST. By THE LADY'S WALK. By Mrs.
Violet Hunt. Oliphant.
THE KING OF ANDAMAN : A MIRRY-ANN. By NORMA Lorimer.
Saviour of Society. By Mac- By Norma
J.
JOSIAH'S WIFE.
LAREN Cobban. Lorimer.
THE ANGEL OF THE COVE- THE STRONG GOD CIRCUM-
NANT. By J. Maclaren Cobban.
STANCE. By Helen Shipton.
IN THE DAY OF ADVERSITY.
Bloundelle- Burton.
By CHRISTALLA. By Esm6 Stuart.
J.
DENOUNCED. By J. Bloundelle- THE DESPATCH RIDER. By
BURTON. Ernest Glanville
THE CLASH OF ARMS. By J. AN ENEMY TO THE KING. By
Bloundelle-Burton. R. N. Stephens.
ACROSS THE SALT SEAS. By J. A GENTLEMAN PLAYER. By
Bloundelle-Burton. R. N. Stephens.
THE PATHS OF THE PRUDENT. SONS OF ADVERSITY. By L. Cope
By J. S. Fletcher. Cornford.
THE BUILDERS. By J. S. THE KING OF ALBERTA. By
Fletcher. Laura Daintrey.
DANIEL WHYTE. By A. J. Daw- THE DAUGHTER OF ALOUETTE.
SON. By Mary A. Owen.
THE CAPSINA. By E. F. Benson. CHILDREN OF THIS WORLD.
DODO A DETAIL OF THE DAY.
: By Ellen F. Pinsent.
By E. F. Benson. AN ELECTRIC SPARK. By G.
THE VINTAGE. By E. F. Benson. Manville Fenn.
Illustrated by G. P. Jacomb-Hood. UNDER SHADOW OF THE
ROSE A CHARLITTE. By Mar- MISSION. By L. S. McChesney.
shall Saunders. THE SPECULATORS. By J. F.
WILLOWBRAKE. By R. Murray Brewer.
Gilchrist
THINGS THAT HAVE HAP- THE
OF STORM. By
SPIRIT
PENED. By Dorothea Gerard. Ronald Ross.
LONE PINE: A ROMANCE OF THE QUEENSBERRY CUP. By
Clive p. Wolley.
MEXICAN LIFE. By R. B.
Townshend. A HOME IN INVERESK. By T.
WILT THOU HAVE THIS L. Baton.
WOMAN ? By J. Maclaren MISS ARMSTRONG'S AND
Cobban. OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. By
A PASSIONATE PILGRIM. By John Davidson.
Percy White. DR. CONGALTON'S LEGACY. By
SECRETARY TO BAYNE, M.P. Henry Johnston.
By W. Pett Ridge. TIME AND THE WOMAN. By
ADRIAN ROME. By E. Dawson Richard Pryce.
and A. Moore. THIS MAN'S DOMINION. By the
GALLIA. By M^nie Muriel A High Little World.'
Author of '
DOWIE. DIOGENES OF LONDON. By H.

THE CROOK OF THE BOUGH. B. Marriott Watson.
By Minnie Muriel Dowie. THE STONE DRAGON. By
A BUSINESS IN GREAT WATERS. R. Murray Gilchrist.
By Julian Corbett. A VICAR'S WIFE. By Evelyn
MISS ERIN. By M. E. Francis. Dickinson.
ANANIAS. By the Hon. Mrs. Alan ELSA. ByE. M 'Queen Gray.
Brodrick. THE SINGER OF MARLY. By L
CORRAGEEN IN '98. By Mrs. Hooper.
Orpen. THE FALL OF THE SPARROW.
By M. C. Balfour.
THE PLUNDER PIT. By J. Keigh-
ley Snowden. A SERIOUS COMEDY. By Herbert
CROSS TRAILS. By Victor Waite. MORRAH.
THE FAITHFUL CITY. By
SUCCESSORS TO THE TITLE. Herbert Morrah.
By Mrs. Walford, IN THE GREAT DEEP. By J. A.
KIRKHAM'S FIND. By Mary Barry.
Gaunt. BIJLI, THE DANCER. By James
DEADMAN'S. By Mary Gaunt. Blythe Patton.
CAPTAIN JACOBUS: A ROMANCE THE PHILANTHROPIST. By
OF THE ROAD. By L. Cope Corn- Lucy Maynard.
ford. VAUSSORE. By Francis Brune.
THREE-AND-SIXPENNY NOVELS
Crown Svo.
THE MESS DECK. By W. F. AUT DIABOLUS AUT NIHIL.
Shannon. By X. L.
A SON OF THE STATE. By W. THE COMING OF CUCULAIN.
Pett Ridge. By Standish O'Grady.
CEASE FIRE! By J. Maclaren THE GODS GIVE MY DONKEY
Cobban. WINGS. By Angus Evan Abbott.
THE KLOOF BRIDE. By Ernest THE STAR GAZERS. By G. Man-
Glanville. VILLE FENN.
THE LOST REGIMENT. By THE POISON OF ASPS. By R.
Ernest Glanville. Orton Prowse.
BUNTER'S CRUISE. By Charles
THE QUIET MRS. FLEMING. By
Gleig. Illustrated.
R PRYCE
DISENCHANTMENT. By F. Mabel
THE ADVENTURE OF PRIN- Robinson.
CESS SYLVIA. By Mrs. ,C. N. THE SQUIRE OF WANDALES.
Williamson. By A. Shield.
A VENDETTA OF THE DESERT. A REVEREND GENTLEMAN. By
By W. C. Scully. M. Cobban.
J.
SUBJECT TO VANITY. By Mar- A DEPLORABLE AFFAIR. By
caret Benson. W. E. NORRIS.
FITZJAMES. By Lilian Street. A CAVALIER'S LADYE. By Mrs.
THE SIGN OF THE SPIDER. Fz/ik Dicker.
Edition.By Bertram Mitford. THE PRODIGALS. By Mrs.
THE MOVING FINGER. By Mary Oliphant.
Gaunt. THE SUPPLANTER. By P. Neu-
JACO TRELOAR. By J. H, Pearce. mann.
THE DANCE OF THE HOURS. A MAN WITH BLACK EYE-
By 'Vera.' LASHES. By H. A. Kennedy.
A WOMAN OF FORTY. By Esm£ A HANDFUL OF EXOTICS. By
Stuart. S. Gordon.
A CUMBERER OF THE GROUND. AN ODD EXPERIMENT. By
By Constance Smith. Hannah Lynch.
THE SIN OF ANGELS. By Evelyn TALES OF NORTHUMBRIA. By
Dickinson. Howard Pease.
HALF-CROWN NOVELS
Crown Svo.
HOVENDEN, V.C. By F. Mabel IN TENT AND BUNGALOW. By
Robinson. the Author of '
Indian Idylls.
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN. By MY STEWARDSHIP. By E.
F. Mabel Robinson, M'QuEEN Gray.
MR. BUTLER'S WARD. By F. JACK'S FATHER. By W. E.
Mabel Robinson. NORRIS.
ELI'S CHILDREN. By G. Man- A LOST ILLUSION. By Leslie
ville Fenn. Keith.
A DOUBLE KNOT. By G. Man- THE TRUE HISTORY OF JOSHUA
ville Fenn. DAVIDSON, Christian and Com-
DISARMED. By M. Betham munist. By E. Lynn Lynton.
Edwards. Eleve7itk Editioti, Post Svo. is.
XLbc novelist
Messrs. Methuen
are making an interesting experiment which constitutes a
fresh departure in publishing. They are issuing under the above general title
a Monthly Series of Novels by popular authors at the price of Sixpence. Many
of these Novels have never been published before. Each Number is as long as
the average Six Shilling Novel. The first numbers of The Novelist are as ' '
follows :
I. DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES. XIII. THE POMP OF THE LAVI-

W. HORNUNG.
E. LETTES. Gilbert Parker.
IL JENNIE BAXTER, JOURNA- XIV. A MAN OF MARK. Anthony
LIST. Robert Barr. Hope.
III. THE INCA'S TREASURE. XV. THE CARISSIMA. Lucas
Ernest Glanville. Malet.
IV. Out ofprint.
V. FURZE BLOOM. S. Baring
XVI. THE LADY'S WALK Mrs.
Oliphant.
Gould.
VI. BUNTER'S CRUISE. C, XVII. DERRICK VAUGHAN.
Gleig. Edna Lyall.
VII. THE GAY DECEIVERS. XVIII. IN THE MIDST OF
Arthur Moore. ALARMS. Robert Barr.
VIII. PRISONERS OF WAR. A.
BOYSON Weekes. XIX. HIS GRACE. W. E.
IX. Outofprmt. NORRIS.
X. VELDT AND LAAGER : Tales XX. DODO. E. F. Benson.
of the Transvaal. E. S. Valen-
tine. XXI. CHEAP JACK ZITA. S.
XI. THE NIGGER KNIGHTS. Baring Gould.
F. NORREYS CONNELL. XXII. WHEN VALMOND CAME
XII. A MARRIAGE AT SEA. W. TO PONTIAC. Gilbert
Clark Russell. Parker.
jfflbetbuen'6 Sijpenn^ TLibrarg

A New Series of Copyright Books
I. THE MATABELE CAMPAIGN. VII. BADEN-POWELL OF MAFE-
By Major-General Baden-Powell. KING: A Biography. By J. S.
Fletcher.
II. THE DOWNFALL OF PREM-
PEH. By Major-General Baden- VIII. ROBERTS OF PRETORIA.
Powell. By J. S. Fletcher.
III. MY DANISH SWEETHEART. IX. THE GREEN GRAVES OF

By W. Clark Russell. BALGOWRIE. By Jane H. Find-
later.
IV. IN THE ROAR OF THE SEA. X. THE STOLEN BACILLUS. By
By S. Baring-Gould. H. G. Wells.
V. PEGGY OF THE BARTONS. XI. MATTHEW AUSTIN. By W.
By B. M. Croker. E. Norris.
4^ Messrs. Methuen^s Catalogue
Books for Boys and Girls

A Series of Books by well-known Authors, well illustrated.
THREE-AND-SIXPENCE EACH
THE ICELANDER'S SWORD. By THE DOCTOR OF THE JULIET.
S. Baring Gould, By Harry Collingwood.
TWO LITTLE CHILDREN AND MASTER ROCKAFELLAR'S
VOY-
CHING. By Edith E. Cuthell.
AGE. By W. Clark Russell.
TODDLEBEN'S HERO. By M. M.
Blake. SYD BELTON : Or, The Boy who
ONLY A GUARD -ROOM DOG. would not go to Sea. By G. Man-
By Edith E. Cuthell. viLLE Fenn.
The Peacock Library

A Series of Books for Girls by well-known Authors, handsomely bound,
and well illustrated.
THREE-AND-SIXPENCE EACH
THE RED GRANGE. By Mrs. DUMPS. By Mrs. Parr.
Molesworth. A GIRL OF THE PEOPLE. By
THE SECRET OF MADAME DE L. T. Meade.
MONLUC. By the Author of HEPSY GIPSY. By L. T. Meade.
'
Mdle. Mori.' 2.S. 6d.
OUT OF THE FASHION. By L. THE HONOURABLE MISS. By

T. Meade. L. T. Meade.
University Extension Series

A series of books on historical, literary, and scientific subjects, suitable for
extension students and home-reading circles. Each volume is complete in
itself, and the subjects are treated by competent writers in a broad and
philosophic spirit.
Edited by J. E. SYMES, M.A.,
Principal of University College, Nottingham.
Crown Svo. Price {with some exceptions) is. 6d.
The followiyig volumes are ready —
THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF M.A., Fellow of Oriel College, Oxon.
ENGLAND. By H. DE B. Gibbins, Third Edition.
Litt.D., M.A., late Scholar of Wad-
ham College, Oxon., Cobden Prize- PROBLEMS OF POVERTY : An
man. Seventh Edition, Revised. Inquiry into the Industrial Condi-
With Maps and Plans. 3^. tions of the Poor. By J. A. HOBSON,
M.A. Fourth Edition.
A HISTORY OF ENGLISH POLITI-
CAL ECONOMY. By L. L. Price, VICTORIAN POETS. By A. Sharp.
The FRENCH REVOLUTION. By THE VAULT OF HEAVEN. A

J. M.A.
E. Symes, Popular Introduction to Astronomy.
PSYCHOLOGY. By F. S. Granger, By R. A. Gregory. With numerous
M.A. Second Edition. Illustrations.
THE EVOLUTION OF PLANT METEOROLOGY. The Elements of

LIFE Lower : Forms. By G. Weather and Climate. By H. N.
Massee. With Illustrations. Dickson, F.R.S.E., F.R. Met. Soc.
AIR AND WATER. By V. B. Lewes, Illustrated.
M.A. Illustrated. A MANUAL OF ELECTRICAL
THE CHEMISTRY OF LIFE AND SCIENCE. By George J. Burch,
HEALTH. By C. W. Kimmins, M.A., F.R.S. With numerous Illus-
M.A. Illustrated. trations. 3J.
THE MECHANICS OF DAILY THE EARTH. An Introduction to

LIFE. ByV. P. Sells, M.A. Illus- Physiography. By EvAN Small,
trated. M.A. Illustrated.
ENGLISH SOCIAL REFORMERS. INSECT LIFE. By F. W. Theo-
By H. DE B. GiBBiNS, Litt.D., M.A. bald, M.A. Illustrated.
ENGLISH TRADE AND FINANCE ENGLISH POETRY FROM BLAKE
IN THE SEVENTEENTH CEN- TO BROWNING. By W. M.
TURY. By W. A. S. Hewins, B.A. Dixon, M.A.
THE CHEMISTRY OF FIRE. The
LOCAL GOVERN-
Elementary Principles of Chemistry. ENGLISH
By M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A. MENT. By E. Jenks, M.A., Pro-
Illustrated. fessor of Law at University College,
Liverpool.
A TEXT-BOOK OF AGRICUL-
TURAL BOTANY. By M. C. THE GREEK VIEW OF LIFE. By
Potter, M.A., F.L.S. Illustrated. G. L. Dickinson, Fellow of King's
3J. td. College, Cambridge. Second Edition.
Social Questions of To-day

Edited by H. be B. GIBBINS, Litt.D., M.A.
Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The following Volumes of the Series are ready :
—
TRADE UNIONISM— NEW AND THE RURAL EXODUS. By
OLD. By G. Howell. Third Anderson Graham.
Edition.
LAND NATIONALIZATION. By
THE CO OPERATIVE MOVE-
-
Harold Cox, B.A.
MENT TO-DAY. By G. J. Holy-
A SHORTER WORKING DAY.
OAKE. Second Edition.
By H. de B. Gibbins, D.Litt., M.A.,
MUTUAL THRIFT. By Rev. J. and R. A. Hadfield, of the Hecla
Frome Wilkinson, M.A. Works, Sheffield.
PROBLEMS OF POVERTY. By
A. Hobson, M.A. Fourth Edition.
J.
BACK TO THE LAND An Inquiry :
into the Cure for Rural Depopulation.

THE COMMERCE OF NATIONS. By H. E. MooRE.
By C. F. Bastable, M.A,, Professor
of Economics at Trinity College, TRUSTS, POOLS AND CORNERS.
Dublin. Second Edition. By J. Stephen Jeans.
THE ALIEN INVASION. By W. THE FACTORY SYSTEM. By R.
H. Wilkins, B.A. W. Cooke-Taylor.
44 Messrs. Methuen's Catalogije
THE STATE AND ITS CHIL- THE PROBLEM OF THE UN-

DREN. By Gertrude Tuckwell. EMPLOYED. By J. A. HOBSON,
WOMEN'S WORK. ByLADYDlLKE, B.A.
Miss BuLLEY, and Miss Whitley. LIFE IN WEST LONDON. By
SOCIALISM AND MODERN Arthur Sherwell, M.A. Third
THOUGHT. By M. Kaufmann. Edition.
THE HOUSING OF THE WORK- RAILWAY NATIONALIZATION.

ING CLASSES. By E. Bowmaker. By Clement Edwards.
MODERN CIVILIZATION IN WORKHOUSES AND PAUPER-
SOME OF ITS ECONOMIC ISM. By Louisa Twining.
ASPECTS. By W. Cunningham, UNIVERSITY AND SOCIAL
D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, SETTLEMENTS. By W. Reason,
Cambridge. M.A.
Classical Translations
Edited by H. F. FOX, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford.
^SCHYLUS — Agamemnon. Choe- HORACE: THE ODES AND
phoroe, Eumenides. Translated by EPODES. Translated by A.
Lewis Campbell, LL.D., late Pro- Godley, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen
fessor of Greek at St. Andrews. 55. College, Oxford. 2s.
CICERO— De Oratore I. Translated LUCIAN — Six Dialogues (Nigrinus,

by E. N. P. Moor, M.A. 35. 6d. Icaro - Menippus, The Cock, The
Ship, The Parasite, The Lover of
CICERO— Select Orations (Pro Milone, Falsehood). Translated by S. T.
Pro Murena, Philippic ll., In Catili-
Irwin, M.A., Assistant Master at
nam). Translated by H. E. D.
Clifton late
; Scholar of Exeter
Blakiston, M.A., Fellow and Tutor
College, Oxford, y. 6d.
of Trinity College, Oxford. 55.
SOPHOCLES — Electra and Ajax.
CICERO— De Natura Deorura. Trans- Translated by E. D. A. Morshead,
lated by F, Brooks, M.A., late M.A., Assistant Master at Win-
Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford. chester. 2S. 6d.
35. (id. TACITUS— Agricola and Germania.
CICERO DE OFFICIIS. Translated Translated by R. B. Townshend,
by G. B. Gardiner, M.A. Crown late Scholar of Trinity College, Cam-
8vo. 2s. 6d. bridge. 2s. 6d.
Educational Books
CLASSICAL
THE NICOMACHEAN ETHICS THE CAPTIVI OF PLAUTUS.
OF ARISTOTLE. Edited with an Edited, with an Introduction, Textual
Introductionand Notes by John Notes, and a Commentary, by W.
Burnet, M.A., Professor of Greek
at St. Andrews. Demy 8vo. 155.
M. Lindsay, Fellow of Jesus College,
net Oxford. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. net.
'
We must content ourselves with saying, in
For this edition all the important MSS. have
conclusion, that we have seldom, if ever,
seen an edition of any classical author in
been re-collated. An appendix deals
with the accentual element in early
which what is held in common with other
Latin verse. The Commentary is very
commentators is so clearly and shortly
full.
put, and what is original is (with equal
brevity) of such value and interest' '
A work of great erudition and fine scholar-
ship.' Scotsman.
A GREEK ANTHOLOGY. Selected Freese, M.A., late Fellow of St.

by E, C. Marchant, M.A., Fellow John's, Cambridge, is. 6d.
of Peterhouse, Cambridge, and Assis-
tant Master at St. Paul's School.
DEMOSTHENES AGAINST
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
CONON AND CALLICLES.
Edited with Notes and Vocabulary,
PASSAGES FOR UNSEEN TRANS- by F, Darwin Swift, M.A. Fcap.
LATION. By E. C. Marchant, 8V0. 2S.
M.A., Fellow of Peterhouse, Cam- EXERCISES IN LATIN ACCI-
bridge and A. M. Cook, M.A., late
;
DENCE. By S. E. Winbolt,
Scholar of Wadham College, Oxford Assistant Master in Christ's Hospital.
Assistant Masters at St. Paul's School. Crown 8vo. is. 6d.
Crown Svo.
3^. 6d. An elementary book adapted for Lower
'
We know no book of this class better fitted Forms to accompany the shorter Latin
for use in the higher forms of schools.' primer.
Guardian.
NOTES ON GREEK AND LATIN
TACITI AGRICOLA. With Intro- SYNTAX. ByG. BucklandGreen,
duction, Notes, Map, etc. By R. F. M.A., Assistant Master at Edinbui-gh
Davis, M.A., Assistant Master at Academy, late Fellow of St. John's
Weymouth College. Crown 8vo. zs. College, Oxon. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
TACITI GERMANIA. By the same Notes and explanations on the chief diffi-
culties of Greek and Latin Syntax, with
Editor. Crown 8vo. 2s.
numerous passages for exercise.
HERODOTUS EASY SELEC-
:
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. A
TIONS. With Vocabulary. ByA.C. Course for Beginners. By G. Rod-
LiDDELL, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d.
well, B.A. With a Preface by
SELECTIONS FROM THE ODYS- Walter Lock, D.D., Warden of
SEY. ByE. D. Stone, M. A., late Keble College. Fcap. 8vo. y. 6d.
Assistant Master at Eton. FcaJ>. 8vo. THE FROGS OF ARISTOPHANES.
IS. 6d. Translated by E. W. Huntingford,
PLAUTUS: THE CAPTIVI. M.A., Professor of Classics in Trinity
Adapted for Lower Forms by J. H. College, Toronto. Cr. 8vo. -zs. 6d.
GERMAN
A COMPANION GERMAN GRAM- GERMAN PASSAGES FOR UN-
MAR. By H. DE B. GiBBiNS, D. Litt. SEEN TRANSLATION. By E.
M.A., Headmaster at Kidderminster M 'Queen Gray. Crown 8vo.
Grammar School. Crown 8vo. is. 6d. 2s. 6d.
SCIENCE
GENERAL ELEMENTARY Elliott Steel, M.A., F.C.S. 147
SCIENCE. By J. T. DuNN, D.Sc, Illustrations. Second Edition. Cr.
and V. A. Mundella. With 114 8vo. zs. 6d.
Illustrations. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. THE PRINCIPLES OF MAGNET-
\_Methuen's Science Primers. ISM AND ELECTRICITY: an
THE WORLD OF SCIENCE. In- Elementary Text-Book. By P. L.
cluding Chemistry, Heat, Light, Gray, B.Sc, formerly Lecturer in
Sound, Magnetism, Electricity, Physics in Mason University College,
Botany, Zoology, Physiology, As- Birmingham. A\nth 181 Diagrams.
tronomy, and Geology. By R. Crown 8vo. y. ^d.
ITcjtboofts of ZTecbnologg
Edited by Professors GARNETT and WERTHEIMER.
HOW TO MAKE A DRESS. By J. Science, Newcastle-on-Tyne. Fully
A. E. Wood. Illustrated. Second illustrated. Crown Bvo. 3J. 6^.
Edition. Cr. Bvo. is. 6d. MILLINERY, THEORETICAL,
CARPENTRY AND JOINERY. By AND PRACTICAL. By Clare
F. C. Webber. With many Illustra- Hill, Registered Teacher to the
tions. Second Edition. Cr.Bvo. y. 6d. Cityand Guilds of London Institute.
' An admirable elementary text-book on the With numerous Diagrams. Crown
subject. '— Builder. Bvo. 2S.
PRACTICAL MECHANICS. By PRACTICAL CHEMISTRY.

Sidney H. Wells. With 75 Illus- By W. French, M.A., Principal
and Diagrams. Cr.Zvo. y.6d.
trations of the Storey Institute, Lancaster.
Part I. With numerous diagrams.
PRACTICAL PHYSICS. By H. Crown Bvo. is. 6d.
Stroud, D.Sc, M.A., Professor of '
An excellent and eminently practical little
Physics in the Durham College of book. '
Schoolmaster.
ENGLISH
ENGLISH RECORDS. A Companion A SHORT STORY OF ENGLISH
to the History of England. By H. E. LITERATURE. By Emma S.
Malden, M.A. Crown Bvo. y. 6d.
Mellows. Crown Bvo. 35. bd.
'
A lucid and well-arranged account of the
growth of English literature.' — Pall
THE ENGLISH CITIZEN HIS Mall Gazette. :
RIGHTS AND DUTIES. By H. E. TEST CARDS IN EUCLID AND

Malden, M.A. is. 6d. ALGEBRA. By D. S. Calder-
WOOD, Headmaster of the Normal
OF DEDUCTIVE School, Edinburgh. In three packets
A DIGEST
of 40, with Answers, is. Or in
LOGIC. By Johnson Barker, three Books, price 2.d., 2d., and 3^.
B.A. Crown Bvo. 2s. 6d.
THE METRIC SYSTEM. By Leon
Delbos. Crown Bvo.
A CLASS-BOOK OF DICTATION 2s.
PASSAGES. By W. Williamson, A theoretical and

practical guide, for use
in elementary schools and by the general
B.A. Fourth Edition. Cr.Bvo. is. 6d. reader.
METHUEN'S COMMERCIAL SERIES

Edited by H. de B. GIBBINS, Litt.D., M.A.
BRITISH COMMERCE AND FRENCH COMMERCIAL COR-
COLONIES FROM ELIZABETH RESPONDENCE. ByS.E. Bally,
TO VICTORIA. By H. de B. Master at the Manchester Grammar
GiBBiNS, Litt.D., M.A. Third School. Second Edition, zs.
Edition. 2s.
COMMERCIAL EXAMINATION GERMAN COMMERCIAL

RESPONDENCE. ByS. E.
COR-
Bally.
PAPERS. By H. DE B. GiBBiNS,
With Vocabulary. 2s. 6d.
Litt.D., M.A. IS. 6d.
THE ECONOMICS OF COM- A FRENCH COMMERCIAL
MERCE. By H. DE B. GiBBiNS, READER. By S. E. Bally. Second
Litt.D., M.A. IS. 6d. Edition. 2s.
A GERMAN COMMERCIAL PRECIS WRITING AND OFFICE

READER. By S. E. Bally. With CORRESPONDENCE. By E. E.
Vocabulary. 2s. Whitfield, M.A. 2s.
COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHY, with

A GUIDE TO PROFESSIONS AND
special reference to the British Em-
pire. ByL. W. Lyde, M.A. Third BUSINESS. By H. Jones, is. 6d.
Edition. 2S.
THE PRINCIPLES OF BOOK-
A PRIMER OF BUSINESS. By S. KEEPING BY DOUBLE ENTRY.
Jackson, M.A. Third Ed. u. bd. ByJ.E.B.M 'Allen, M.A. Cr.Svo. 2s.
COMMERCIAL ARITHMETIC. By
F. G. Taylor, M.A. Third Edition. COMMERCIAL LAW. By W.
IS. 6d, Douglas Edwards. 2s.
WORKS BY A. M. M. ST E DMAN, M.A.

INITIA LATINA: Easy Lessons on LATIN VOCABULARIES FOR RE-
Elementary Accidence. Fourth PETITION Arranged according to
:
Edition. Fcap. Svo. is. Subjects. Ninth Edition. Fcap.

Svo. IS. 6d.
FIRST LATIN LESSONS. Sixth
Edition. Crown Svo. 2S. A VOCABULARY OF LATIN
IDIOMS. iSmo. Second Edition, is.
FIRST LATIN READER. With
Notes adapted to the Shorter Latin STEPS TO GREEK. Second Edition,
Primer and Vocabulary. Fifth Revised. iSmo. is.
Edition revised. iSmo. is. 6d. A SHORTER GREEK PRIMER.

Crown Svo.
EASY SELECTIONS FROM EASY GREEK
is. 6d.
C^SAR. Part I. The Helvetian PASSAGES FOR

War. Second Edition. iSmo. is. UNSEEN TRANSLATION. Third
Edition Revised. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.
EASY SELECTIONS FROM LIVY. GREEK VOCABULARIES FOR
Part 1. The Kings of Rome. i8mo.
REPETITION. Arranged accord-
Second Edition, is. 6d.
ing to Subjects. Second Edition.
EASY LATIN PASSAGES FOR UN- Fcap. Svo. IS. 6d.
SEEN TRANSLATION. Seventh GREEK TESTAMENT SELEC-
Editiofi. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.
TIONS. For the use of Schools.
EXEMPLA LATINA. Lessons First Third Editiojt. With Introduction,
in Latin Accidence. With Vocabulary. Notes, and Vocabulary. Fcap. Svo.
Crown Svo. is. 2s. 6d.
EASY LATIN EXERCISES ON THE STEPS TO FRENCH. Fifth Edi-

SYNTAX OF THE SHORTER tion. iSmo. Sd.
AND REVISED LATIN PRIMER. FIRST FRENCH LESSONS. Fifth
With Eighth and
Vocabulary. Edition Revised. Crown Svo. is,
cheaper Edition, re-written. Crown
Svo. IS. 6d. Issued with the consent EASY FRENCH PASSAGES FOR
of Dr. Kennedy. Key 35. 7iet. UNSEEN TRANSLATION. Fourth
THE LATIN COMPOUND SEN- Edition revised. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.
TENCE Rules and Exercises. EASY FRENCH EXERCISES ON
:
Second Edition. Cr.Svo. u. 6^. With ELEMENTARY SYNTAX. With

Vocabulary, zs. Vocabulary. Second Edition. Crown
Svo. 2s. 6d. Key 3J. net.
NOTANDA QUAEDAM : Miscellan-
eous Latin Exercises on Common FRENCH VOCABULARIES FOR
Rules and Idioms. Fourth Edition. REPETITION : Arranged according
F'cap. Svo. IS. 6d. With Vocabulary. to Subjects. Ninth Edition. Fcap.
2s. Key, 2s. net. I
Svo. is.
SCHOOL EXAMINATION SERIES

Edited by A. M. M. STEDMAN, M.A. Crown Svo. zs. 6d.
FRENCH EXAMINATION GERMAN EXAMINATION

PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS PAPERS IN MISCELLANEOUS
GRAMMAR AND IDIOMS. By GRAMMAR AND IDIOMS. By
A. M. M. Stedman, M.A. Eleventh R. J. MORICH, Clifton College.
Edition. Fifth Edition.
A Key, issued to Tutors and Key (^Second Editiori) issued as
above. 6s. net.
Private Students only, to be had
on application to the Publishers. HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY EX-
Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. AMINATION PAPERS. By C. H.
6s. net. Spence, M.A., Clifton College.
Second Edition.
LATIN EXAMINATION PAPERS PHYSICS EXAMINATION
IN MISCELLANEOUS GRAM- PAPERS. By R. E. Steel, M.A.,
MAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. F.C.S.
Stedman, M.A. Tenth Edition. GENERAL KNOWLEDGE EX-
Key {Fourth Edition) issued as AMINATION PAPERS. By A.
above. 6s. net. M. M. Stedman, M.A. Third
Edition.
Key {Second Edition) issued as
GREEK EXAMINATION PAPERS above, yj. net.
IN MISCELLANEOUS GRAM-
MAR AND IDIOMS. By A. M. M. EXAMINATION PAPERS IN
Stedman, M.A. Sixth Edition. ENGLISH HISTORY. By J. Tait
Plowden-Wardlaw, B.A., King's
Key {Second Edition) issued as College, Cambridge. Crown Svo.
above. 6s. net. 2S. 6d.
Date Due

Some New Testament Problems, A. Wright. 1898

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Some New Testament Problems, A. Wright. 1898

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

* MAY 28 1904 *)

SOME NEW TESTAMENT PROBLEMS

JOHN HENRY BURN, B.D.

THE BEGINNINGS OF ENGLISH CHRISTIANITY. By W. E.

METHUEN & CO.

I. First, Second and Third Editions of S. Mark's

II. S. Mark's Order . . . . . ii

III. S. Matthew's "Logia" . . . . i6

IV. S. Luke's "Travel Narrative" . . .

XI. S. Mark's Testimony to the Resurrection . 115

XII. The Camel and the Needle's Eye . . .125

XIV. On the Date of the Crucifixion . .147 .

XV. Mr. Halcombe's Strictures on Modern Criticism 195

XVII. Papias on S. Matthew . . 265. .

^^-XVIII. The Gift of Tongues . . 277. .

The Beautiful Gate of the Temple

^ ^"XXI. That Prophecy is Conditional .

XXII. The Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews

learn of Him who has said, "Whosoever shall not

receive the kingdom of God as a little child, will not

apprehension of Scripture truth is assisted by some

exegesis. Textual criticism is indispensable. His-

his most effective weapons. Destructive it may be

a true science, it must in the long run prove the

called, should so rapidly gain ground in the domain

It is in the hope of contributing something to that

S. John's yield no problems, but in these days it is

impossible for one man to deal adequately with the

whole range of New Testament study. I, at any

on one or two small departments.

Gospels, and I am now engaged on a critical edition

of S. Luke's Gospel for use in the lecture-room.

The work of preparing these volumes has suggested

the statistics which have facilitated their solution.

interpretation and apologetics. I have also at times

What I have written in defence of the oral

hypothesis may be read in connexion with the

memory, similar passages are sure to become more

to S. Matthew and S. Luke the process of uncon-

the same difficulties, asked the same questions, and

There would be force in these objections if we held

tions were supplied from conjecture or by conflation,

then we must remember the biblical method, which

S. Mark's accounts of these two parallel events,

have probably been still further assimilated to

some extent ; S. Matthew's unquestionably to a very

Another case in which he has done the same thing is

given on page 48, but there are scores of passages in

unconscious cerebration, may be perceived. S. Luke

copyist with documents before him would, I main-

teaching could be carried on for forty years without

The papers on the Acts of the Apostles deal with

analyse that book into its sources. The materials

cussion of them for a future occasion.

The paper on the Epistle to the Hebrews is tenta-

tive and suggestive rather than exhaustive. Perhaps

A correct theory of the Scriptures is an immense

Holy Writ to join with me in using the ancient

Veni, Creator Spiritus,

Imple superna gratia

FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD EDITIONS

that we may still trace three stages in the formation

him, by passing through the minds and memories of